= Solution
Yes. The <bootstrap confidence interval> for the age coefficient, $(0.057060,0.193584)$, excludes zero and supports the same positive association. A well-implemented <parametric bootstrap> can give better finite-sample calibration than the asymptotic <likelihood-ratio test>, especially with only eleven year groups and estimated <variance components>. Its advantage depends on simulating the full fitted <Gaussian linear mixed model> and refitting correctly; resampling individual records as if they were independent would discard the grouping. A <bootstrap confidence interval> is also not literally the same procedure as a bootstrap-calibrated test.
The bird-level <standard deviation> is appreciable, with interval $(0.436,0.720)$ hatchlings, whereas the year-level estimate is much less precise, with interval $(0.0195,0.333)$. The residual <standard deviation> is approximately $0.381$–$0.493$. Boundary fits in 23 of the 1000 replicates indicate that at least one fitted <variance component> sometimes reaches zero; the convergence warning should also be investigated before trusting the reported intervals. Neither the asymptotic test nor a model-based <bootstrap> repairs incorrect response-distribution or mean-structure assumptions.
Back to article page
