0 views

Uploaded by Chiara Gastaldi

Exploration of the statistical tools ANOVA (one way and two way) and MANOVA (one way and two way), comparison and application to a test case coming from the Mechanical Engineering Field

- 12. Kanchan Gautam
- StatDas 13 Mei 2017
- Interpreting Regression
- Solution 5
- grad expo poster
- Cuisine Preference of Local Tourists in San Juan, Batangas, Philippines
- Anova
- Experiments at Airbnb - Airbnb Engineering
- Statistical Tests and Interpretation
- ANOVA TEST.pdf
- Embs7e - Ch 09
- 1788295757
- A review of the evidence
- Retirement Stress and Management Strategies Among Retired Civil Servants in Kwara State
- Testing of Hyp.
- Sol_PQ220-6234F.Ch-10
- EVALUATION OF USE OF ULTRASOUND IMAGING IN SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFICULT SURFACE ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.
- HUL_bs_pl
- skittles project part 5
- Admission in Indian

You are on page 1of 12

s210549 Gastaldi Chiara

s223633 Umer Muhammad

0. Table of contents

1. Introduction

6. Conclusions

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to explore the statistical tools ANOVA (one way and two way)

and MANOVA (one way and two way), compare and apply them to a test case coming from

the field of interest of the two authors.

1.1 ANOVA

If the objective is to compare two groups or populations on a single factor, the t-Test is

sufficient. On the other hand "Analysis of Variance" (ANOVA) tests three or more groups for

mean differences based on a continuous (i.e. scale or interval) response variable (a.k.a.

independent variable). The term "factor" refers to the variable that distinguishes this group

membership. The lathe machine that produced a mechanical component is an example of

factor.

1. "one-way" ANOVA compares levels (i.e. groups) of a single factor based on a single

continuous response variable (e.g. comparing the diameter of the mechanical

components by the lathe machine that produced them)

2. "two-way" ANOVA compares levels of two or more factors for mean differences on

a single continuous response variable (e.g. comparing diameter of the mechanical

component by both the lathe machine and the operator).

1.2 MANOVA

MANOVA stands for Multivariate Analysis of Variance". In basic terms, a MANOVA is an

ANOVA with two or more continuous response variables. Like ANOVA, MANOVA has both a

one-way flavor and a two-way flavor. The number of factor variables involved distinguishes

a one-way MANOVA from a two-way MANOVA:

component diameter and surface roughness) by a single factor variable (e.g. lathe

machine that produced them).

2. "two-way" MANOVA compares two or more continuous response (e.g. component

diameter and surface roughness) by two or more factor variables (e.g. lathe

machine and the operator).

Hypotheses of ANOVA

Following two hypotheses are considered in ANOVA.

Ho: The (population) means of all groups under consideration are equal.

Ha: Means are not all equal. (Note: This is different than saying they are all

unequal)

Four parameters are needed to perform significant testing in one-way ANOVA:

Alpha is chosen ahead of time (in this case set to 0.05) and represents the

willingness to falsely reject the null hypothesis if it is true. In practical terms It is the

area of the right

F-critical corresponds to the x coordinate of the distribution that guarantees that

the area on the right of F-critical is (5%) of the total.

The F ratio is computed from the data (see Sect. 2)

The p value is the area on the right of the F ratio.

F ratio

A large F ratio means that the variation among group means is more than you'd expect

to see by chance. A large F ratio is encountered both when the null hypothesis is wrong

(the data are not sampled from populations with the same mean) and when random

sampling happened to end up with large values in some groups and small values in

others.

P value

The P value tests the null hypothesis that data from all groups are drawn from

populations with identical means. Therefore, the P value answers this question:

If all the populations really have the same mean (the fact that the rods come from

different lathe machines is ineffective), what is the chance that random sampling would

result in means as far apart (or more so) as observed in this experiment?

If the overall P value is large (i.e. > 0.05), the data do not give you any reason to

conclude that the means differ. Even if the population means were equal. This is not the

same as saying that If the overall P value is small, then it is unlikely that the differences

you observed are due to random sampling. It is possible to reject the idea that all the

populations have identical means.

Decision criteria

If the computed F-ratio > F-critical the null hypothesis is rejected

2. Solved Exercise: One Way ANOVA

In a mechanical parts manufacturing factory, a small rod with nominal diameter 25mm

(dependent variable) has been machined on 3- different lathe machines (i.e. independent

variables). On each lathe machine 7 parts are machined and the diameter has been

measured. A statistical data analysis is required to observe the 3 machines data differences.

2.1 Data

Data

no. of df= degrees of freedom

samples lathe 1 lathe 2 lathe 3

SS= Sum of squares

1 25.45 25.71 25.64

MS= Mean Square

2 25.20 25.50 25.73

hypothesis

5 25.10 25.78 25.56

2.2 Solution

The excel Data Analysis tool has been used and cross-checked with step-by-step calculation

ANOVA: Single Factor (Alpha=0.05)

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

lathe 1 7 177.23 25.319 0.044681

lathe 2 7 179.71 25.673 0.00839

lathe 3 7 180.14 25.734 0.013362

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups (BG) 0.704924 2 0.3525 15.91649 0.000105 3.554557

Within

Groups(WG)/Error (E) 0.3986 18 0.0221

3

= ( )2

=1

where nj is the size of sample j (always 7 in this case)

3 7

= = ( )2

=1 =1

3 7

= ( )2

=1 =1

/

=

/

= +

Ho: All means of rod diameters from 3-lathe machines are equal

Using the criteria defined in Sect. 1.3 is it possible to conclude that, since:

- the p-value is lower than 5%

- the computed F-ratio is higher than Fcritical

the null hypothesis H0 is rejected, in other words Ha is accepted. The data provide

sufficient evidence to conclude that the means of the rod diameter from the 3-lathe

machines are not all the same.

In the same above mentioned example, we introduce one more independent variable: there

are now 2 operators working at the 3 different lathe machines. All operators have worked at

all 3 lathe machines respectively (during different shifts). Six different observations have

been carried out.

The purpose of this section is to establish whether there is any effect of operator

skills/expertise on the output dependent variable (rod diameter).

ANOVA partitions the overall variance into multiple parts:

- one is always the ERROR (the unexplained source, SSE)

- One-way ANOVA works with only one potential source of variability (groups or

columns, i.e. lathe machines, here denoted as SSBG)

- Two-way ANOVA introduces a new additional way to separate data (blocks or rows,

i.e. operators SSBB). It thus allow to further refine how variance is split apart,

allowing for more powerful hypothesis tests.

3.1 Data

Data

Obs. 1

Operator 2 25.20 25.50 25.73

Obs. 2

Operator 2 25.55 25.73 25.91

Obs. 3

Operator 2 25.17 25.66 25.70

Obs. 4

Operator 2 25.4 25.7 25.6

Obs. 5

Operator 2 25.6 25.6 25.8

Obs. 6

Operator 2 25.1 25.7 25.6

3.2 Solution

We are in this case using Matlabs built-in function anova2. The results have been cross checked by

Excels calculations

3.3 Relevant formulas

7

= ( )2

=1

where nk is the size of sample k (always 3 in this case)

/

=

/

/

=

/

= + +

HoG: All means of rod diameters from 3 lathe machines are equal

HoB: All means of rod diameters from 7 different operators are equal

Introducing block or rows (in this case operators) as well as groups allows to reduce SSE,

since part of the variability assigned to error in the one-way ANOVA calculation is now

explained by the presence of different operators running the machines (SSB).

Several conclusions can be drawn from these results

- The introduction of blocks or rows (in this case operators) reduces the error SS E

allowing for more powerful hypothesis tests.

- The p-value for the lathe machine (Columns) is zero to four decimal places, it is

therefore lower than the chosen 5% significance level. This result is a strong

indication that the diameter varies from one lathe machine to another. HoG is

rejected.

- The p-value for the operator (Rows) is 0.8891. This value indicates that the

operators performance is quite comparable. The observed p-value indicates that

an F-statistic as high as the observed one occurs by chance about 89 out of 100

times, if the diameters produced were equal from operator to operator. HoB is

accepted.

- The operators and lathe machines appear to have no interaction. The p-value at

0.99, means that the observed result is likely (99 out 100 times), given that there is

no interaction.

In the same above mentioned example, we introduce one more dependent variable or

response: we are now looking at surface roughness as well as the diameter. The factors here

considered are only the lathe machines, we are not looking at the operators at this stage.

4.1 Data

Data Output Diameter

Data Output Surface Roughness

4.2 Solution

Using Matlabs built-in functions:

[d,p,stats] = manova1([Diameter,Roughness],Groups,0.05);

The first output, d, is an estimate of the dimension of the group means. If the means

were all the same, the dimension would be 0, indicating that the means are at the same

point. In the example the dimension is 1, indicating that it is not possible to reject the

hypothesis that the group means fall along a line.

The largest possible dimension for the means of three groups is 2, which would indicate

that the means fall on a plane but not along a line.

The second output, p, is a vector of p-values for a sequence of tests. The first p value

tests whether the dimension is 0, the next whether the dimension is 1, and so on. In this

case the first p-values is small (6.6510e-06), while the second one is large (0.56). That's

why the estimated dimension is 2.

Matlabs function MBox confirms the assumptions on which MANOVA is based:

[MBox] = MBoxtest([Groups,Diameter,Roughness],0.05);

5. Solved Exercise: Two Way MANOVA

In the same above mentioned example, we introduce one more dependent variable or

response: we are now looking at surface roughness as well as the diameter and testing for

two independent factors (operator and machine)

5.1 Data

Data Output Diameter

Obs. 1

Operator 2 25.20 25.50 25.73

Obs. 2

Operator 2 25.55 25.73 25.91

Obs. 3

Operator 2 25.17 25.66 25.70

Obs. 4

Operator 2 25.4 25.7 25.6

Obs. 5

Operator 2 25.6 25.6 25.8

Obs. 6

Operator 2 25.1 25.7 25.6

Obs. 1 Operator 1 25.45 25.71 25.64

Operator 2 25.20 25.50 25.73

Obs. 2

Operator 2 25.55 25.73 25.91

Obs. 3

Operator 2 25.17 25.66 25.70

Obs. 4

Operator 2 25.4 25.7 25.6

Obs. 5

Operator 2 25.6 25.6 25.8

Obs. 6

Operator 2 25.1 25.7 25.6

5.2 Solution

Using Matlabs function maov2:

maov2([Factor1,Factor2,Diam,Roughness],0.05)

It appears that no interaction occurs between factors, therefore two separate multivariate analysis

of variance have been conducted for Factor 1 (Lathe machines) and Factor 2 (Operators).

As observed for the two-way ANOVA, there exists a difference in the components due to the lathe

machines but not due to the operators.

6. Conclusions

It can therefore be concluded that, in the case observed, the lack of uniformity between the

components is not due to the operators training but to the lathe machines. At least one of the lathe

machines tool is not positioned properly but this does not affect the performance of the operators

on it.

- 12. Kanchan GautamUploaded byAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- StatDas 13 Mei 2017Uploaded byNatasya Mareta
- Interpreting RegressionUploaded byAbhinav Unnam
- Solution 5Uploaded byIvan Ho
- grad expo posterUploaded byapi-394978228
- Cuisine Preference of Local Tourists in San Juan, Batangas, PhilippinesUploaded byAsia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
- AnovaUploaded byAnkita Jain
- Experiments at Airbnb - Airbnb EngineeringUploaded bywhynotfunhere
- Statistical Tests and InterpretationUploaded byRaghad Sabry
- ANOVA TEST.pdfUploaded byniceprachi
- Embs7e - Ch 09Uploaded byIdate Patrick
- 1788295757Uploaded byTrendkill Trendkill Trendkill
- A review of the evidenceUploaded byapi-26008400
- Retirement Stress and Management Strategies Among Retired Civil Servants in Kwara StateUploaded byiqtech
- Testing of Hyp.Uploaded byNaeem Ahmed Umrani
- Sol_PQ220-6234F.Ch-10Uploaded byzwolf
- EVALUATION OF USE OF ULTRASOUND IMAGING IN SPINAL ANAESTHESIA IN PATIENTS WITH DIFFICULT SURFACE ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- HUL_bs_plUploaded byIshu Singla
- skittles project part 5Uploaded byapi-246855746
- Admission in IndianUploaded byedholecom
- Anova TestUploaded byniceprachi
- Will the Heart SpeakUploaded byVishal Wagh
- Lockout 200Uploaded byMatthew Han
- Review of Basic StatisticsUploaded byWilliam Deng
- BRM Ch 21Uploaded byAdeniyi Alese
- NEED TO PUMASAUploaded byRain Malabanan
- Cross Sectional Study on Language Assessment of Speech Delay in Children 0 to 6 YearsUploaded byIOSRjournal
- t_procedure.xlsUploaded byJun Ablon
- Aspiring Drivers Weigh Automotive Revolution SurveyUploaded byFred Lamert
- 11.Format.man-Green Consumerism- A Panacea to Energy CrisisUploaded byImpact Journals

- Global change and sustainabilityUploaded byChiara Gastaldi
- Battiato Gastaldi FEM ReportUploaded byChiara Gastaldi
- Understanding complexities in underplatform damper dynamicsUploaded byChiara Gastaldi
- 2017 - GastaldiFantettiBerruti - appliedstripUploaded byChiara Gastaldi
- Normalized Diagrams NicholsUploaded bycuccuacia
- Appliedacoustics Lab ExplanationsUploaded byChiara Gastaldi
- Cetinkunt-AppndB-547-600_R2Uploaded byChiara Gastaldi

- CHAP 9.pptUploaded bySenelwa Anaya
- R ProgrammingUploaded byBanannah N Da House
- Midterm One 6711 f 13Uploaded bytabrupt
- Chapter 4 (598)Uploaded byM-Hazmir Hamzah
- SS1 Quantitative Analysis IUploaded byRohit Mittal
- ma3215_exam1_soln.pdfUploaded byPei Jing
- ENGR 371 Final Exam August 1999Uploaded byamnesiann
- Bayesian NetworkUploaded byJaehyun Kim
- Statistical InferenceUploaded byGold Usenekong
- CrystalBall User ManualUploaded byChandu Gandi
- OUTPUT1Uploaded byChristy Angelia
- poissonUploaded byDylan Erickson
- kf1Uploaded byNguyễn Thành Trung
- Statistical Significance and MeaningfulnessUploaded byBeverly Wangare
- R09 Correlation and RegressionUploaded byTorakiSato
- DMUU.docUploaded byAmit Maheshwari
- stats project finalUploaded byapi-316977780
- Teaching plan Beka2453Uploaded byKoh Guan Keong
- Post cat1Uploaded byShrey Grover
- Lilliefors TestUploaded byMamang Aja
- Panel Data ModelsUploaded bydeadman71
- Preacher and Hayes 2008Uploaded bydrdjettel
- Introduction To Statistics.pptUploaded byLee Min Mark XXVI
- mad2da2Uploaded byMuhamad Nurmahmudi
- 14 HW1 & LN1 Q1-Q13 Ans KeyUploaded bySteven Glansberg
- Multiple RegressionUploaded byOche Michael
- spssUploaded byNurus Sa'adiyah
- PROB Quiz Dec 4 2013Uploaded byJude Alonzo
- Shannon–Hartley TheoremUploaded bySlodnulius
- Review 2Uploaded byHarshada Ojha