I am trying to make sure that I am specifying and interpreting this model correctly.
In my experiment, participants take two tests (test1, test2) and answer four questions on each test (it's the same test twice). They can either get each question right (1) or wrong (0). I am trying to see to what extent getting the question right on the first test predicts whether they'll get the question right on the second test.
Example data frame
df <- read.table(header = T, text = "
subj question test1 test2
1 1 1 0 0
2 1 2 1 0
3 1 3 0 1
4 1 4 0 0
5 2 1 0 0
6 2 2 0 1
7 2 3 0 0
8 2 4 0 0
9 3 1 1 0
10 3 2 1 1
11 3 3 0 1
12 3 4 0 1
13 4 1 1 1
14 4 2 1 1
15 4 3 1 0
16 4 4 1 0
17 5 1 0 1
18 5 2 0 0
19 5 3 1 1
20 5 4 1 1
")
I am specifying the model as
fit <- glmer(test2 ~ test1 + (1 | subj),
data = df,
family = "binomial", na.action = na.exclude)
And here's the output
summary(fit)
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) -0.1823 0.6055 -0.301 0.763
test1 0.4055 0.9037 0.449 0.654
# exponentiate the log odds to get odds ratio
exp(fixef(fit))
(Intercept) test1
0.8333333 1.5000000
So according to this sample data & output, and ignoring the p-value, the odds of getting a question correct on test2 are about 50% higher if you got the question correct on test1.
Are my specification and interpretation correct?