I used the stepAIC function in the package MASS to do binomial logistic regression on a dataset and the final model derived had an AIC of 57.8. When I tried to replicate the model in jamovi, the AIC was 131. Why the different results? jamovi results attached. Thanks
MASS pkg results:
Call:
glm(formula = phototherapy ~ compatibility + DAT_results + peak_bili, 
    family = binomial, data = szAIC)
Deviance Residuals: 
     Min        1Q    Median        3Q       Max  
-1.80278  -0.28119  -0.16732  -0.07112   2.52543  
Coefficients:
              Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)    
(Intercept)    -8.1175     1.8056  -4.496 6.93e-06 ***
compatibility  -1.7169     1.0480  -1.638   0.1014    
DAT_results     1.9487     0.9220   2.114   0.0345 *  
peak_bili       0.6969     0.1646   4.235 2.29e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
(Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
    Null deviance: 94.419  on 135  degrees of freedom
Residual deviance: 49.809  on 132  degrees of freedom
AIC: 57.809
Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 7
										stepAIC function in MASS pkg vs jamovi: different results
stepAIC function in MASS pkg vs jamovi: different results
- Attachments
 - 
			
		
				
- 2020-06-21 at 13.34.44 stepAIC.png (84.09 KiB) Viewed 4078 times
 
 
Re: stepAIC function in MASS pkg vs jamovi: different result
not sure,
but the models in jamovi are constructed like this:
https://github.com/jamovi/jmv/blob/master/R/logregbin.b.R#L72
and then the AIC is calculated like this:
https://github.com/jamovi/jmv/blob/master/R/logregbin.b.R#L79
the folks responsible for writing the underlying packages may be better equipped to handle questions of why results the differ.
cheers
						
									
						
										
							but the models in jamovi are constructed like this:
https://github.com/jamovi/jmv/blob/master/R/logregbin.b.R#L72
and then the AIC is calculated like this:
https://github.com/jamovi/jmv/blob/master/R/logregbin.b.R#L79
the folks responsible for writing the underlying packages may be better equipped to handle questions of why results the differ.
cheers