‫)‪2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫]‪[132−113‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬

‫**‬ ‫*‬
‫ﻭﻜﺎﻉ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻫﺩﺒﺔ‬ ‫ﻤﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺯﻴﺯ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‬
‫ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻠﺨﺹ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺩ ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤـﺯ ﺍﻟﺘـﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﺃﻤﻜـﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺫﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤـﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺒـﺕ ﻭﻫـﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪ .‬ﻴﺘﻤﻴـﺯ ﺍﻷﺴـﻠﻭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺭﺡ ‪l‬ﻥ ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻱ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺒﺄﻨﻪ ﻴﻌﻁﻰ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤـﺎﺕ ﺇﻀـﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻋـﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻜﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘـﻲ ﻴﻌﻁﻴﻬـﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴـل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻤﺜل ﻤﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ‪ ،‬ﻭﺘﻌﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫﺓ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻟﻬـﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺴـﻠﻭﺏ ﻤـﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻭﺀ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻫﺎ‪.‬‬

‫‪The Relationship between Analysis of Variance and the‬‬

‫‪Regression Analysis of Dummy Variables‬‬
‫‪ABSTRACT‬‬
‫‪Regression analysis of dummy variables with effect code‬‬
‫‪showed the same results of the analysis of variance table when‬‬
‫‪they were applied on three fixed model designs. The designs‬‬
‫‪were: completely randomized, randomized complete blocks and‬‬
‫‪Latin square. This procedure gave an advantage upon the classic‬‬
‫‪one, it yield additional information about the relation between the‬‬
‫‪response and predictors as the regression analysis does, such as:‬‬
‫‪coefficient of determination, identification of the outliers, also‬‬
‫‪tackled the missing observations without estimating them.‬‬

‫* ﺃﺴﺘﺎﺫ ﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩ‪/‬ﻗﺴﻡ ﺍﻹﺤﺼﺎﺀ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺘﻴﺔ‪/‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺴﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺎﺕ‪/‬ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺼل‪.‬‬

‫** ﻤﺩﺭﺱ ﻤﺴﺎﻋﺩ‪/‬ﻗﺴﻡ ﺍﻹﺤﺼﺎﺀ‪/‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‪/‬ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﻜﺭﻜﻭﻙ‪.‬‬
‫ـــــــــــ ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﻘﺒﻭل ‪2008/3/ 5:‬‬ ‫ﺘﺎﺭﻴﺦ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﻠﻡ ‪2007/10/ 9 :‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[114‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ‬
‫‪quantitative‬‬ ‫ﻴﻁﺒﻕ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﻜﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ ،variables‬ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺼﻔﻴﺔ ‪ qualitative variables‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺘﺤﻭﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺇﺤـﺩ ﺃﺸﻜﺎل ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺒﺭﺓ ﺃﻭ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ‪indicated or dummy‬‬
‫‪) variable‬ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‪ .(2006 ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻲ ﻫﻭ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺄﺨﺫ ﺃﺭﻗﺎﻤﺎ‬
‫ﻤﺤﺩﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ )‪ (2006‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ‪effect code‬‬
‫ﻻ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻷﺭﻗﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺴﻠﺴﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻔﻘﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻤﻴﻴﺯ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺒﺩ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺜﻴﺭ ﻤﻥ ﺼﻔﺎﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻠﻐﻴﹰﺎ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻷﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻔﺌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺃﻟﻭﺼﻔﻲ ﺃﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﻋﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻟﻪ ‪ k‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺒـﻌﺩﺩ ‪ k-1‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺤﺘﻰ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺼﻔﻭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ )‪ (X'X‬ﺫﺍﺕ ﺭﺘﺒﺔ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ )‪.(full rank‬‬
‫ﺃﺸﺎﺭ )‪ Vuchkov and Boyadjieva (2001‬ﻭﺇﺴﻤﺎﻋﻴل ﻭﺁﺨﺭﻭﻥ )‪،(2003‬‬
‫ﻜﻐﻴﺭﻫﻡ ﻤﻤﻥ ﺍﻫﺘﻡ ﺒﻤﺠﺎل ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ ﻹﻴﺠﺎﺩ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﻭﻤﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻭﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺩ ﻴﻭﺍﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻤﻪ ﻟﻠﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺒﻌﺽ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺒﺎﺕ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻋﺩﻡ ﺇﻤﻜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻜﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻌﻁﻴﻬﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﺠﻭﺏ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﻭﻴﺘﺒﻊ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺘﺨﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻘﺒﺎﺕ ﻨﻘﺩﻡ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺒﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺎ ﻤﻘﺘﺭﺤﺎ ﻴﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ‬
‫ﻴﻭﻀﺢ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ‪ yi‬ﻭﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺤﻴﺔ ‪Xij‬‬
‫ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺒـﻴﻥ ﺍﻷﻭﺴـﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﺴـﺎﺒﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻠـﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻌﺒﺭ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻔﻬﻭﻡ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬـﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ‬
 ‫]‪[115‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻴﻭﻀﺢ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻨﻤـﻭﺫﺝ ﻴﻌﻨـﻰ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻀﻤﻥ ﺇﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﻭﻀﻊ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺸﻑ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺒـﺕ ‪ fixed model‬ﻓـﻲ ﺜﻼﺜـﺔ‬
‫ﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﺒﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤـﺯ ﺍﻟﺘـﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻟﻨﺘـﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺠـﺎﺭﺏ ﺘﻠـﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪General linear model :‬‬
‫ﺒﻴﻥ )‪ Agresti and Franklin (2007‬ﺃﻥ ﻗـﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴـﺭ ﺍﻻﺴـﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﺘﺘـﺄﺜﺭ‬
‫ﺒﻌﺎﻤﻠﻴﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﻫﻭ ﺤﺩ ﺘﻨﺒﺅﻱ ﻤﻘﺩﺍﺭﻩ‪ ، (B0 +B1Xi1 +B2Xi2 +L+BmXim) :‬ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤـل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﻫﻭ ﺤﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ‪ . ε i‬ﻜﻼ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤﻠﻴﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻭﺼـﻴﻐﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪m‬‬
‫‪y i = B0 + ∑ B j X ij + ε i ; i = 1,2,..., n ; j = 1,2,..., m‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(1‬‬
‫‪j =1‬‬

‫‪ : y i‬ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ‪ i‬ﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪ : β o , ... , β m‬ﺜﻭﺍﺒﺕ ﺘﺩﻋﻰ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪.‬‬
‫‪ : X i1 , ... , X im‬ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺘﻭﻀﻴﺤﻴﺔ ﺒﻌﺩﺩ ‪ m‬ﻜل ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﻴﺤﺘـﻭﻱ ﻋﻠـﻰ ﻋـﺩﺩ ‪ n‬ﻤـﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺍﺕ‪.‬‬
‫‪ : ε i‬ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﺎﻟﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ‪. i‬‬
‫ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻤﻲ )‪ (2006‬ﺍﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻐﺭﻯ ﻫﻲ ﺃﻓﻀل‬
‫ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺘﺤﻴﺯﺓ ﻟﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻭﺘﻌﻁﻲ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺨﻁـﺄ‬
‫) ‪ ( ε ' ε‬ﺃﻗل ﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻐﺔ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻔﻭﻓﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[116‬‬

‫‪βˆ = ( X ′X ) −1 X ′y‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(2‬‬

‫ﻓﻲ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ )‪ (1‬ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ ﻫﻭ‪:‬‬
‫‪SStotal (SST) = SS(R(X1,…,Xt-1)) + SSe‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(3‬‬
‫ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫))‪ :SS(R(X1,…,Xm‬ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻌـﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺌـﺩ ﺇﻟـﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺤـﺩﺍﺭ ‪SS(due to‬‬
‫)‪ ،regression‬ﻭﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﺜل ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺭﻤﺯ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﺃﻴﻀﹰﺎ‬
‫ﺒﹻ ) ‪. SS ( Rt‬‬
‫‪ :SSe‬ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ )‪ ،SS(error‬ﻭﻫﻭ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻨﺤﺭﺍﻑ ﺍﻟﻘـﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺩﺭ )‪ (1‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﺒﺅ ﺤﻭل ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴـﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﺘﺨﺘﺒـﺭ‬
‫ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﻡ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪Ho : B1 = B2 = L = Bm = 0‬‬
‫ﻀﺩ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺩﻴﻠﺔ ) ‪: ( H 1‬‬
‫)‪H 1 : B1 ≠ B2 ≠ L ≠ Bm ≠ 0 , (at least one of β j 's ≠ 0‬‬
‫ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺭ ﺍﻹﺤﺼﺎﺌﻲ ‪ F‬ﻋﻨﺩ ﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ‪ m‬ﻭ‪ ،n-m-1‬ﺤﻴﺙ‬
‫ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫)) ‪MS( R( X 1 ... X m‬‬ ‫‪(β ' X ' y − ny 2 ) / m‬‬
‫=‪F‬‬ ‫=‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(4‬‬
‫) ‪MSe( X 1 ... X m‬‬ ‫)‪( y' y − β ' X ' y) /(n − m − 1‬‬

‫ﻫﻨﺎﻙ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺘﺘﻌﻠﻕ ﺒﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺠﺯﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﻡ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻴـﺔ ﻤﻨـﻪ‬
‫ﻤﻌﺭﻓﺔ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺃﻭ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ m − k‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀﻴﺤﻴﺔ )‪(Xk+1….Xm‬‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺤﺘﻭﻱ ﻤﺴﺒﻘﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ k‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴـﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻀـﻴﺤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪(Berenson et al., 2006) :‬‬

‫‪Ho : Bk +1 = Bk + 2 = L = Bm | β1 ...β k = 0‬‬

‫)‪H 1 : Bk +1 ≠ Bk + 2 ≠ L ≠ Bm | β1 ...β k ≠ 0 , (at least one of β k +1 , ... , β m ≠ 0‬‬
 ‫]‪[117‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﺒﺭ ﺍﻹﺤﺼﺎﺌﻲ ﻫﻭ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ F‬ﺒﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ‪ ، n − m − 1 ، m − k‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬

‫)) ‪MS( R( X k +1 X k +2 L X m | X 1 L X k‬‬
‫=‪F‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(5‬‬
‫) ‪MSe( X 1 X 2 L X m‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﺤﺘﻭﺍﺀ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪H 0 : B j | B1 B 2 … B j-1 B j+1 … B m = 0‬‬
‫‪H A : B j | B1 B 2 … B j-1 B j+1 … B m ≠ 0‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺘﺒﺎﻉ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ‪ F‬ﺒﺩﺭﺠﺔ ﺤﺭﻴﺔ ‪ 1‬ﻭ ‪ ،m‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫)) ‪MS(R(Xj X1 X 2 ...X j-1 X j+1 ….X m‬‬
‫=‪F‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(6‬‬
‫) ‪MSe (X1 X 2 …….. X m‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ‪Completely randomized design‬‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﻤﺨﻁﻁ ﺫﻭ ﺍﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﻴﺤﺘﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ‪ t‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﺘﻭﺯﻉ ﻋﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﹰﺎ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ tr‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﺎﻨﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪ r :‬ﻴﻤﺜل ﻋﺩﺩ ﺘﻜﺭﺍﺭ ﻜل ﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﺃﻥ ‪ tr‬ﻫﻭ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ n‬ﻤﻥ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺘﻁﺒﻴـﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌـﺎﻤﻼﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﺎﻨﺴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺘﺤﻭل ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ )ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ( ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ t-1‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪i‬‬
‫‪X ij‬‬
‫=‬ ‫‪-1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪) t‬ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ(‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻐﻴﺭ ﻤﺎ ﺫﻜﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻤﺼﻔﻭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ )‪ ، X n×((t −1)+1‬ﻭﻋﻨﺎﺼﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﻪ ‪ y n×1‬ﻋﺒـﺎﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻋﻥ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[118‬‬

‫‪⎡1 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎤‪. 0‬‬

‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎤ ‪⎡ y11‬‬ ‫⎢‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢y‬‬ ‫‪⎢1 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 0‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ 12‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪⎢1 0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 1‬‬
‫⎥ ⎢‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫‪y n×1‬‬ ‫; ⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪X n×t‬‬ ‫⎢=‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎥ ⎢‬ ‫‪⎢1 0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 1‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢y‬‬ ‫‪⎢1 − 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. − 1‬‬
‫⎦ ‪⎣ uj‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫‪⎢⎣1 − 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎦⎥‪. − 1‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴـﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴـﺔ‪،‬‬
‫ﺘﻭﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻫﻭ‪:‬‬
‫‪y ij = u + τ j + ε ij‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(7‬‬
‫‪ : µ‬ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺎﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻠﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :τ j‬ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪. j‬‬
‫‪ : ε ij‬ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻲ ﻟﻠﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ‪ j‬ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺕ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪. i‬‬
‫ﺒﻌﺩ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟـﺔ‬
‫)‪ (1‬ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪y i = β 0 + B1 X 1 + B2 X 2 + ... + Bt −1 X t −1 + ε i‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(8‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ‬
‫ﺏ‪ -‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺨﺘﺒﺭﻫﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ )‪(7‬‬
‫ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o :τ 1 = τ 2 = ... = τ t = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(9‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 :τ 1 ≠ τ 2 ≠ ... ≠ τ t ≠ 0 , (at least two of τ i 's are not equal‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺨﺘﺒﺭﻫﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ )‪ (8‬ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
 ‫]‪[119‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫‪H o : B1 = B2 = ... = Bt −1 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(10‬‬

‫)‪H 1 : B1 ≠ B2 ≠ ... ≠ Bt −1 ≠ 0 , (at least one of β j 's ≠ 0‬‬
‫ﺕ‪ -‬ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻴﻼﺤﻅ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺠﻴﻥ )‪ (7‬ﻭ)‪ (8‬ﺘﻨﺎﻅﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (9‬ﻭ)‪ ،(10‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ (9‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺒﺎﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ (10‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼـﺔ ﺒﺘﺤﻠﻴـل‬
‫ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻴﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪ (1‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (9‬ﻭ)‪.(10‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :1‬ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻤﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪.‬‬

‫‪S.O.V.‬‬ ‫‪D.F.‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬

‫) ‪MS ( Rt‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬ ‫‪t −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS(R( X 1 ,..., X t −1 )) = SS(Rt‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬

‫) ‪error ( X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬ ‫‪n−t‬‬ ‫‪SSe‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪n −1‬‬ ‫‪SST‬‬

‫ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‬

‫‪Randomized complete blocks design‬‬
‫ﻴﺤﺘﻭﻱ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺘﺠﺎﻫﻴﻥ ﻫﻤﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﺒﻌﺩﺩ ‪ t‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺒﻌﺩﺩ ‪.r‬‬
‫ﻴﻘﺴﻡ ﻜل ﻗﻁﺎﻉ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ t‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﺎﻨﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘـﻲ ﺘـﻭﺯﻉ ﻋﻠﻴﻬـﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻋﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﹰﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻨﺤﺼل ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫‪ tr‬ﻤﻥ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻴﺘﻡ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ t+r-2‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ t-1‬ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻭ‪r-‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪ .i = 1, … ,t ; j = 1, … ,r :‬ﻭﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪t‬‬
‫‪X1, … ,t-1 = -1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻵﺨﺭ ﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺭ ﺫﻟﻙ‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻘﻁﺎﻉ ‪r‬‬
‫‪Xt, … ,t+r-2 = -1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ ‪ yij‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻵﺨﺭ ﻗﻁﺎﻉ‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺭ ﺫﻟﻙ‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[120‬‬

‫ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻤﺼﻔﻭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ )‪ ، X n×(t + r −2‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﻪ ‪ y n×1‬ﺍﻟـﺫﻱ ﻋﻨﺎﺼـﺭﻩ‬

‫ﻫﻲ ﻋﻥ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬

‫‪⎡1 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. 1‬‬ ‫⎤‪0‬‬

‫⎤ ‪⎡ y11‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢y‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥⎥ ‪.‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ 12‬‬ ‫‪⎢1 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. − 1 − 1‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎥ ⎢‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥‪.‬‬
‫‪y n ×1‬‬ ‫; ⎥ ‪=⎢ .‬‬
‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥‪.‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪X n×t +r −2‬‬ ‫⎢=‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎥ ⎢‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥‪.‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢y‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥‪.‬‬
‫⎦ ‪⎣ uj‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪. .‬‬ ‫⎥‪.‬‬
‫‪⎢1 0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 0 1‬‬
‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫‪⎢⎣1 − 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎦⎥‪. − 1 − 1‬‬
‫ﻟﻨﻼﺤﻅ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻘﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺙ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻫﻭ‪:‬‬
‫‪y ij = µ + ρ i + τ j + ε ij‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫) ‪(12‬‬
‫ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪ µˆ = y..‬ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺎﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪:‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪τ i = µˆ i − µˆ = y i. − y.. : i‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ‪ρˆ j = µˆ j − µˆ = y. j − y.. :j‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻲ‪εˆij = yij − yi. − y. j + y.. :‬‬
‫ﻭﺒﻌﺩ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ )‪(1‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪y i = Bo + B1 X 1 + ... + Bt −1 X t −1 + Bt X t + ... + Bt + r − 2 X t + r − 2 + ε i‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(13‬‬

‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ‬ ‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ‬

 ‫]‪[121‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﺏ‪ -‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ‪:‬‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻴﺨﺘﺒﺭ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ ﻫﻤﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o :τ 1 = ... = τ t‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(14‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 : τ 1 ≠ ... ≠ τ t , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o : ρ1 = ρ 2 = .... = ρ r‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(15‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 : ρ1 ≠ ρ 2 ≠ ... ≠ ρ r , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻴﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o : β 1 = ... = β t −1 = β t = ... = β r +t − 2 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(16‬‬
‫)‪H 1 : β1 ≠ ... ≠ β t −1 = β t = ... = β r +t −2 ≠ 0 , (at least one of β j 's ≠ 0‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ (16‬ﺘﻨﺎﻅﺭ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫‪H o :τ 1 = τ 2 = ... = τ t = ρ1 = ... = ρ r‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(17‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 :τ 1 ≠ τ 2 ≠ ... ≠ τ t ≠ ρ1 = ... ≠ ρ r , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬

‫ﻼ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (14‬ﻭ)‪ (15‬ﻫﻤﺎ‬

‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (16‬ﻭ)‪ ،(17‬ﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻜ ﹰ‬
‫ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺠﺯﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ .(16‬ﻭﻻﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (14‬ﻭ)‪ (15‬ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﺨﺘﺒﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﺯﺌﻴﺘﺎﻥ)‪ (18‬ﻭ)‪ (19‬ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺘﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o : β 1 = ... = β t −1 | β t ... β r +t − 2 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(18‬‬
‫)‪H 1 : β1 ≠ ... ≠ β t −1 | β t ... β r +t − 2 ≠ 0 , (at least one of β j 's ≠ 0‬‬

‫‪H o : β t = ... = β r +t − 2 | β1 ... β t −1 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(19‬‬

‫)‪H 1 : β t ≠ ... ≠ β r +t − 2 | β 1 ... β t −1 ≠ 0 , (at least one of β j 's ≠ 0‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[122‬‬

‫ﺕ‪-‬ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ )‪ (13‬ﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺌﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫)‪ (3‬ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫) ‪SS ( R( X 1 ,..., X t + r −2 )) = SS ( Rt ) + SS ( Rr‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(20‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫)) ‪SS ( Rt ) = SS ( R( X 1 , ... , X t −1‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(21‬‬

‫)) ‪SS ( Rr ) = SS ( R( X t , ... , X t + r − 2‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(22‬‬

‫ﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (14‬ﻭ)‪ (15‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺘﻴﻥ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (18‬ﻭ)‪ (19‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺘﻴﻥ ﺒﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ‬
‫ﻤﻭﻀﺢ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪.(2‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :2‬ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻤﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻓـﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴـل ﺍﻟﺘﺒـﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪.‬‬

‫‪S.O.V.‬‬ ‫‪D.F.‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬

‫) ‪R ( X 1 ,..., X r +t −2‬‬ ‫‪r +t −2‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( R( X 1 ,..., X r +t −2‬‬

‫) ‪MS ( Rt‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X 1 ,..., X t −1 | X t ,..., X r +t − 2‬‬ ‫‪t −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( Rt‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬
‫) ‪MS ( Rb‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X t ,..., X r +t − 2 | X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬ ‫‪r −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( Rb‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬
‫) ‪error ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X r +t − 2‬‬ ‫‪n − r − t +1‬‬ ‫‪SSe‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪n −1‬‬ ‫‪SST‬‬

‫ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ ‪Latin Square Design‬‬

‫ﻫﻭ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺓ ﻋﻥ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻗﻁﺎﻋﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻌﺎﻤﺩﻴﻥ ﺃﺤﺩﻫﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﺼـﻔﻭﻑ )‪rows (rj‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻵﺨـﺭ ﻴﻤﺜل ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺩﺓ )‪ ،columns (ck‬ﺘﻭﺯﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ )‪ (ti‬ﻋﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﹰﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋـﺩﺩ‬
‫‪ rc‬ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻟﺘﻅﻬﺭ ﻜل ﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻤﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﺤﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﺼﻑ ﻭﻤﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻜل‬
‫ﻋﻤـﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴـﺙ ﺇِﻥ‪ j=1,2,…,r ; k=1,2,…,c ; i=1,2,…,t :‬ﻭﺃﻥ‪.r = c = t :‬‬
 ‫]‪[123‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫وﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻨﺤﺼل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ‪ tr = n‬ﻤﻥ ﻗﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﺘﻡ ﺇﻨﺸﺎﺀ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺭﻤﻭﺯ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻴﺔ ﺒﻌﺩﺩ ‪ ،t+r+c-3‬ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ‪ t-1‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻭ‪ r-1‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺼﻔﻭﻑ ﻭ‪ c-1‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻸﻋﻤﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪i‬‬
‫=‪Xj‬‬ ‫‪-1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭﺓ‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴـــﺭ ﺫﻟــــﻙ‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺼﻑ ‪j‬‬
‫=‪Xj‬‬ ‫‪-1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﺼﻑ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭ‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴـــﺭ ﺫﻟــــﻙ‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻭﺩ ‪k‬‬
‫=‪Xj‬‬ ‫‪-1‬‬ ‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﻫﺩﺓ )‪ yjk(i‬ﺘﻌﻭﺩ ﻟﻠﻌﻤﻭﺩ ﺍﻷﺨﻴﺭ‬
‫‪0‬‬ ‫ﻏﻴـــﺭ ﺫﻟــــﻙ‬
‫ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺘﻨﺸﺄ ﻤﺼﻔﻭﻓﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ )‪ ، X n×(t + r +c −3‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺘﺠﻪ ‪ y n×1‬ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻋﻨﺎﺼـﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻫﻲ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ‪ ،‬ﺤﻴﺙ ﺃﻥ‪:‬‬
‫‪⎡1 1‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎤‪. 0‬‬
‫⎤ )‪⎡ y11(1‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫⎢‬
‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬ ‫‪⎢1 1‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 0‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫‪y rc×1‬‬ ‫; ⎥ ‪=⎢ .‬‬ ‫) ‪X rc×( r +c +t − 2‬‬ ‫‪= ⎢1 0 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 0‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢ .‬‬ ‫‪⎢. .‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥ ‪. .‬‬
‫⎥ ‪⎢y‬‬ ‫⎢‬ ‫⎥‬
‫⎦ ) ‪⎣ rc ( t‬‬ ‫‪⎢1 0‬‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎥‪. 1‬‬
‫‪⎢1 − 1 − 1‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫⎦⎥‪. − 1‬‬
‫⎣‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺘﻼﺤﻅ ﻓـﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[124‬‬

‫ﺃ‪ -‬ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺤﻴﺙ ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻲ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ ﻫﻭ‪:‬‬
‫) ‪y jk (i ) = µ + ρ j + γ k + τ (i ) + ε jk (i‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(23‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺤﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪ : µˆ = y..‬ﺍﻟﻭﺴﻁ ﺍﻟﺤﺴﺎﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻠﺔ ‪τˆ(i ) = µˆ i − µˆ = y.(i ) − y.. :i‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻑ ‪ρˆ j = µˆ j − µˆ = y j . − y.. :j‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻭﺩ ‪γˆk = µˆ k − µˆ = y.k − y.. :k‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻲ‪εˆi = y jk (i ) − y j . − y.k − y.(i ) + 2 y.. :‬‬
‫ﻭﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻫﻭ‪:‬‬
‫‪y i = B0 + B1 x1 + ... + Br −1 x r −1 + Br x r + ... + B2 r − 2 x 2 r − 2 +‬‬
‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ‬ ‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﻭﻑ‬

‫‪B2 r −1 x 2 r −1 + ... + B3r −3 x3r −3 + ε i‬‬

‫ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻷﻋﻤﺩﺓ‬
‫‪r−1‬‬ ‫‪2r−2‬‬ ‫‪3r−3‬‬
‫‪= B0 +∑Bj Xj + ∑Bj Xj + ∑Bj Xj +εi‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(24‬‬
‫‪j=1‬‬ ‫‪j=r‬‬ ‫‪j=2r−1‬‬

‫ﺏ‪-‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ‪:‬‬
‫ﻴﺨﺘﺒﺭ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ ﺜﻼﺙ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻭﻟﻰ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o :τ 1 = ... = τ t‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(25‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 : τ 1 ≠ ... ≠ τ t , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺼﻔﻭﻑ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o : ρ1 = ρ 2 = .... = ρ r‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(26‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 : ρ1 ≠ ρ 2 ≠ ... ≠ ρ r , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬
 ‫]‪[125‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﻭﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺜﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻷﻋﻤﺩﺓ ﻭﻫﻲ‪:‬‬

‫‪H o :γ 1 = γ 2 = .... = γ c‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(27‬‬
‫) ‪H 1 :γ 1 ≠ γ 2 ≠ ... ≠ γ c , (at least two of them are not equal‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ )‪ (due to regression‬ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴـﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻫﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪Ho :β1 = β2 = ... = βr−1 =βr = ...= β2r−2 =β2r−1 =...= β3r−3 =0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(28‬‬
‫)‪H1 :β1 ≠ β2 ≠ ... ≠ βr−1 ≠βr ≠ ...≠ β2r−2 ≠β2r−1 ≠...≠ β3r−3 ≠ 0 (at leastoneof them≠ 0‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ (28‬ﺘﻌﻨﻲ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫‪H o :τ 1 = τ 2 = ...= τ t = ρ1 = ... = ρr = γ 1 =...= γ c‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(29‬‬
‫‪H1 :τ 1 ≠τ 2 ≠ ... ≠ τ t ≠ ρ1 = ... ≠ ρr ≠ γ 1 ≠ ...≠ γ c‬‬ ‫)‪(at leasttwoof themarenotequal‬‬
‫ﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺘﻴﻥ )‪ (28‬ﻭ)‪ (29‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ )‪ (25‬ﻭ)‪(26‬‬
‫ﻭ)‪ (27‬ﻫﻲ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺠﺯﺌﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺔ )‪ ،(28‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺜﻼﺙ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺠﺯﺌﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﻟﻲ‪:‬‬
‫‪Ho : β1 = ... = βr −1 | βr ...β2r −2 β2r −1 ...β3r −3 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(30‬‬
‫)‪H1 : β1 ≠ ... ≠ βr −1 | βr ...β2r −2 β2r −1 ...β3r −3 ≠ 0 (at least one of them ≠ 0‬‬
‫‪H o : β r = ... = β 2r −2 | β1 ...β r −1 β 2r −1 ... β 3r −3 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(31‬‬
‫)‪H 1 : β r = ... ≠ β 2r −2 | β1 ...β r −1 β 2r −1 ... β 3r −3 ≠ 0 (at least one of them ≠ 0‬‬

‫‪Ho : β2r−1 = ... = β3r −3 | β1...βr−1 βr ...β2r −2 = 0‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(32‬‬

‫)‪H1 : β2r −1 ≠ ... ≠ β3r −3 | β1...βr −1 βr ...β2r −2 ≠ 0 (at least one of them ≠ 0‬‬
‫ﺕ‪-‬ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻴﺼﺒﺢ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻌﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﺌﺩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟـﺔ )‪(3‬‬
‫ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪:‬‬
‫) ‪SS ( R( X 1 ,..., X 3r −3 )) = SS ( Rt ) + SS ( Rr ) + SS ( Rc‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(33‬‬
‫)) ‪SS ( Rt ) = SS ( R( X 1 , ... , X t −1 )) = SS ( R ( X 1 ,..., X r −1‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(34‬‬
‫)) ‪SS ( Rr ) = SS ( R( X t , ... , X r −1 )) = SS ( R( X r ,..., X 2 r − 2‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(35‬‬
‫)) ‪SS ( Rc ) = SS ( R( X r ,..., X c −1 )) = SS ( R( X 2 r −1 ,..., X 3r −3‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫)‪(36‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[126‬‬

‫ﻴﺘﻡ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ )‪ (25‬ﻭ)‪ (26‬ﻭ)‪ (27‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ ﻋـﻥ ﻁﺭﻴـﻕ‬

‫ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻔﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ )‪ (30‬ﻭ)‪ (31‬ﻭ)‪ (32‬ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺒﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺯﺌﻲ ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻫﻭ ﻤﺒﻴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪.(3‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :3‬ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻤﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪S.O.V.‬‬ ‫‪D.F.‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬
‫)‪SS (due to reg.‬‬
‫‪R( X 1 ,..., X 3r −3 ) = due to regression‬‬ ‫‪3r − 3‬‬
‫) ‪MS ( Rt‬‬
‫) ‪Rt ( X 1 ,..., X r −1 | X r ,..., X 3r −3‬‬ ‫‪t −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( Rt‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬
‫) ‪MS ( Rr‬‬
‫) ‪Rr ( X r ,..., X 2 r − 2 | X 1 ... X r −1 , X 2 r −1 ... X 3r −3‬‬ ‫‪r −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( Rr‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬
‫) ‪MS ( Rc‬‬
‫) ‪Rc ( X 2 r −3 ,..., X 3r −3 | X 1 ,..., X 2 r − 2‬‬ ‫‪c −1‬‬ ‫) ‪SS ( Rc‬‬
‫‪MSe‬‬
‫) ‪error ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X 3r −3‬‬ ‫‪n − 3r + 2‬‬ ‫‪SSe‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪n −1‬‬ ‫‪SST‬‬

‫ﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ‪:‬‬
‫ﺃﺨﺫﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺩﺒﺔ )‪ .(2005‬ﻭﻫﻲ ﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ ﺃﺠﺭﺍﻫﺎ ﻗﺴـﻡ ﺍﻟﺒﺤـﻭﺙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻭﻗﻊ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﻴﺩﻴﺔ ‪ -‬ﻤﺤﺎﻓﻅﺔ ﻨﻴﻨﻭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﻤـﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒـﺔ ﺇﺠـﺭﺍﺀ‬
‫ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺎﺕ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﻭﺴﻁﺎﺕ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﺼﻨﺎﻑ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺼـﻨﻑ ﺍﻷﻭل‬
‫)ﻨﺎﺯﻟﻲ ‪ (503‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻨﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ )‪ (1k347‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻨﻑ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺙ )ﻁﺎﻗـﺔ ‪ (2‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼـﻨﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻊ )ﻤﺭﺴﻭﻤﻲ ‪ (1‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻨﻑ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻤﺱ )ﺩﻟﺘﺎ ﺒﺎﻴﻪ ‪ .(5409‬ﻁﺒﻘـﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒـﺔ ﻓـﻲ‬
‫ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﺒﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﻗﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻜل ﻗﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﺤﺘﻭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺨﻤـﺱ‬
‫ﻭﺤﺩﺍﺕ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻤﺘﺠﺎﻨﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﺃﻨﺸﹰﺎ ﺃﺭﺒﻌﺔ ﻤﺭﻭﺯ ﻁﻭل ﻜل ﻤـﺭﺯ‬
‫ﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﺃﻤﺘﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻜل ﻤﺭﺯﻴﻥ ﻤﺘﺘﺎﻟﻴﻴﻥ ‪ 75‬ﺴﻨﺘﻴﻤﺘﺭﹰﺍ‪ ،‬ﻭﺯﺭﻉ ﻨﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺭﺓ ﺒﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺁﺨﺭ ‪ 25‬ﺴﻨﺘﻴﻤﺘﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺴﺠﻠﺕ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ ﻭﻫﻲ ﺃﻭﺯﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺤﺎﺼل ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﻫﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﻴﻠﻭﻏﺭﺍﻡ ﻟﻜل ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
 ‫]‪[127‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻬﺩﻑ ﺍﻟﺭﺌﻴﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻫﺩﺒﺔ )‪ (2005‬ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﻭﺭﻱ ﻹﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺤﺘﻭﻱ ﻫـﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﺼـﺎﻤﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﻤﻭﺤﺩﺓ‪ .‬ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺃﻨﺸﺄ ﻫﺩﺒﺔ )‪ (2005‬ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻤﻴﻥ ﻫﻤﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤـل‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻤﺴﺘﻌﻴﻨﹰﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺒﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻁﺒﻘﺕ ﺒﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﺨﺫ ﺒﻨﻅﺭ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻤﻴﺯﺍﺕ ﻜـل ﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ‪ .‬ﻓﻜﺎﻨـﺕ ﺒﻴﺎﻨـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﻜﺎﻵﺘﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل )ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ (4‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋـﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸـﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠـﺔ‬
‫)ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ (6‬ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ )ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪.(8‬‬
‫ﺍﺴـﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﺭﻨﺎﻤﺞ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺴﻭﺒﻲ )‪(Cody and Smith, 2006‬‬
‫‪.SAS‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :4‬ﺤﺎﺼل ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﻫﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﻴﻠﻭﻏﺭﺍﻡ‪/‬ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﻋﺸـﻭﺍﺌﻲ‬
‫ﻜﺎﻤل‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻜﺭﺍﺭ‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪Yi.‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ‬
‫ﻨﺎﺯﻟﻲ ‪503‬‬ ‫‪4.97‬‬ ‫‪5.03‬‬ ‫‪4.89‬‬ ‫‪4.85‬‬ ‫‪4.84‬‬ ‫‪24.58‬‬
‫‪1k347‬‬ ‫‪4.58‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.35‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪22.24‬‬
‫ﻁﺎﻗﺔ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪3.75‬‬ ‫‪4.02‬‬ ‫‪3.81‬‬ ‫‪3.77‬‬ ‫‪3.5‬‬ ‫‪18.85‬‬

‫ﻤﺭﺴﻭﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪5.42‬‬ ‫‪6.19‬‬ ‫‪5.87‬‬ ‫‪5.16‬‬ ‫‪5.15‬‬ ‫‪27.8‬‬

‫ﺩﻟﺘﺎ ﺒﺎﻴﺔ ‪5409‬‬ ‫‪6.48‬‬ ‫‪6.35‬‬ ‫‪5.29‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪4.91‬‬ ‫‪28.03‬‬

‫ﺤﻠﻠﺕ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪ (4‬ﺒﺄﺴـﻠﻭﺒﻴﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﺘﺤﻠﻴل‬

‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺍﺤﺘـﻭﻯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺼﺩﺭﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻫﻤـﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤـﻼﺕ ‪treatments‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻁـﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒـﻲ ‪ ،experimental error‬ﻭﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل‬
‫)‪ .(1‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻋﻁﻰ ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺒﺎﻥ ﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪.(5‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[128‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :5‬ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل‪.‬‬

‫‪S.O.V.‬‬ ‫‪D.F.‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪M.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬
‫= ‪treatments = due to regression‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪12.04‬‬ ‫‪3.01‬‬ ‫‪17.71‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬
‫= ‪error‬‬
‫‪20‬‬ ‫‪3.32‬‬ ‫‪0.17‬‬
‫) ‪error ( X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪15.35‬‬

‫ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :6‬ﺤﺎﺼل ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﻫﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﻴﻠﻭﻏﺭﺍﻡ‪/‬ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺘﻁﺒﻴـﻕ ﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪Yi.‬‬
‫ﻨﺎﺯﻟﻲ ‪503‬‬ ‫‪4.97‬‬ ‫‪5.03‬‬ ‫‪4.89‬‬ ‫‪4.85‬‬ ‫‪4.84‬‬ ‫‪24.58‬‬
‫‪1k347‬‬ ‫‪4.58‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.35‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬ ‫‪22.24‬‬
‫ﻁﺎﻗﺔ ‪2‬‬ ‫‪3.75‬‬ ‫‪4.02‬‬ ‫‪3.81‬‬ ‫‪3.77‬‬ ‫‪3.50‬‬ ‫‪18.85‬‬
‫ﻤﺭﺴﻭﻤﻲ‬ ‫‪5.43‬‬ ‫‪6.19‬‬ ‫‪5.87‬‬ ‫‪5.16‬‬ ‫‪5.15‬‬ ‫‪27.80‬‬
‫ﺩﻟﺘﺎﺒﺎﻴﺔ ‪5409‬‬ ‫‪6.48‬‬ ‫‪6.35‬‬ ‫‪5.29‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪4.91‬‬ ‫‪28.03‬‬
‫‪Y.j‬‬ ‫‪25.21‬‬ ‫‪26.08‬‬ ‫‪24.35‬‬ ‫‪23.13‬‬ ‫‪22.73‬‬ ‫‪121.50‬‬
‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﻁﺒﻕ ﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﻥ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪ (6‬ﻫﻤﺎ‪ :‬ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟـﻰ‬
‫ﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻟﻠﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ‪ treatments‬ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ‪ blocks‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻁـﺄ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻲ ‪ ،experimental error‬ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴـﺔ ﺒﺎﺴـﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﻤﻭﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺒﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪ ،(2‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺃﻋﻁﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻼﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘـﺎﺌﺞ‬
‫ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪.(7‬‬
 ‫]‪[129‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :7‬ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸـﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪S.O.V.‬‬ ‫‪D.F‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪M.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬
‫) ‪due to regression = R( X 1 ,..., X r +t − 2‬‬
‫‪8‬‬ ‫‪13.61‬‬ ‫‪1.70‬‬ ‫‪15.45‬‬
‫= ‪treatments‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪12.04‬‬ ‫‪3.01‬‬ ‫‪27.36‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X 1 ,..., X t −1 | X t ,..., X r +t − 2‬‬
‫= ‪blocks‬‬
‫) ‪R ( X t ,..., X r +t − 2 | X 1 ,..., X t −1‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪1.57‬‬ ‫‪0.39‬‬ ‫‪3.54‬‬

‫= ‪error‬‬
‫) ‪error ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X r +t − 2‬‬
‫‪16‬‬ ‫‪1.75‬‬ ‫‪0.11‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪15.36‬‬

‫ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪:‬‬

‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :8‬ﺤﺎﺼل ﺍﻟﻘﻁﻥ ﺍﻟﺯﻫﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﻜﻴﻠﻭﻏﺭﺍﻡ‪/‬ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻓـﻲ ﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ ﻤﺭﺒـﻊ‬
‫ﻻﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬

‫‪C1‬‬ ‫‪C2‬‬ ‫‪C3‬‬ ‫‪C4‬‬ ‫‪C5‬‬ ‫‪Yj.‬‬ ‫‪Y(i).‬‬

‫‪4.97‬‬ ‫‪6.35‬‬ ‫‪5.87‬‬ ‫‪3.77‬‬ ‫‪4.33‬‬
‫‪R1‬‬ ‫‪25.29‬‬ ‫‪24.58‬‬
‫‪t1‬‬ ‫‪t5‬‬ ‫‪t4‬‬ ‫‪t3‬‬ ‫‪t2‬‬
‫‪4.58‬‬ ‫‪5.03‬‬ ‫‪5.29‬‬ ‫‪5.16‬‬ ‫‪3.50‬‬
‫‪R2‬‬ ‫‪23.56‬‬ ‫‪22.24‬‬
‫‪t2‬‬ ‫‪t1‬‬ ‫‪t5‬‬ ‫‪t4‬‬ ‫‪t3‬‬
‫‪3.75‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.89‬‬ ‫‪5.00‬‬ ‫‪5.15‬‬
‫‪R3‬‬ ‫‪23.28‬‬ ‫‪18.85‬‬
‫‪t3‬‬ ‫‪t2‬‬ ‫‪t1‬‬ ‫‪t5‬‬ ‫‪t4‬‬
‫‪5.43‬‬ ‫‪4.02‬‬ ‫‪4.49‬‬ ‫‪4.85‬‬ ‫‪4.91‬‬
‫‪R4‬‬ ‫‪23.70‬‬ ‫‪27.80‬‬
‫‪t4‬‬ ‫‪t3‬‬ ‫‪t2‬‬ ‫‪t1‬‬ ‫‪t5‬‬
‫‪6.48‬‬ ‫‪6.19‬‬ ‫‪3.81‬‬ ‫‪4.35‬‬ ‫‪4.84‬‬
‫‪R5‬‬ ‫‪25.67‬‬ ‫‪28.03‬‬
‫‪t5‬‬ ‫‪t4‬‬ ‫‪t3‬‬ ‫‪t2‬‬ ‫‪t1‬‬
‫‪Y.k‬‬ ‫‪25.21‬‬ ‫‪26.08‬‬ ‫‪24.35‬‬ ‫‪23.13‬‬ ‫‪22.73‬‬ ‫‪121.50‬‬
 ‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‪...‬‬ ‫]‪[130‬‬

‫ﻭﻗﺩ ﺤﻠﻠﺕ ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل )‪ (8‬ﺒﺄﺴﻠﻭﺒﻴﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻠﺘﺼـﻤﻴﻡ ﻭﻟـﻪ‬
‫ﺃﺭﺒﻌﺔ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﻟﻠﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ‪ treatments‬ﻭﺍﻟﺼﻔﻭﻑ ‪ rows‬ﻭﺍﻷﻋﻤـﺩﺓ‬
‫‪ columns‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻲ ‪ ،experimental error‬ﻭﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺜـﺎﻨﻲ‪ :‬ﺘﺤﻠﻴـل‬
‫ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ )ﺍﻟﺠـﺩﻭل ‪ .(3‬ﻭﺃﻋﻁـﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺒﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ )ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪.(9‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ‪ :9‬ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‪S.O.V‬‬ ‫‪D.F.‬‬ ‫‪S.S.‬‬ ‫‪M.S.‬‬ ‫‪F‬‬
‫) ‪due to regression = R( X 1 ,..., X 3r −3‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪14.57‬‬ ‫‪1.21‬‬ ‫‪17.29‬‬
‫= ‪treatments‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪12.04‬‬ ‫‪3.01‬‬ ‫‪43.00‬‬
‫) ‪Rt ( X 1 ,..., X r −1 | X r ,..., X 3r −3‬‬
‫= ‪rows‬‬
‫‪Rr ( X r ,..., X 2 r − 2 | X 1 ... X r −1 ,‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪0.96‬‬ ‫‪0.24‬‬ ‫‪3.43‬‬
‫) ‪X 2 r −1 ... X 3r −3‬‬
‫= ‪columns‬‬
‫) ‪Rc ( X 2 r −3 ,..., X 3r −3 | X 1 ,..., X 2 r − 2‬‬
‫‪4‬‬ ‫‪1.57‬‬ ‫‪0.39‬‬ ‫‪5.57‬‬
‫= ‪error‬‬
‫‪12‬‬ ‫‪0.79‬‬ ‫‪0.07‬‬
‫) ‪error ( X 1 , X 2 ,..., X 3r −3‬‬

‫‪total‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫‪15.35‬‬

‫ﺃﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ )‪ (2006‬ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ‬

‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻭﺀ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺒﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺨﺩﻡ ﺃﻋﻁﻰ ﻨﻔـﺱ‬
‫ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﻁﺭﻴﻘﺔ ‪ Yates‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ‪ ،‬ﻓﻀﻼ ﻋﻥ ﺤﺼﻭﻟﻪ ﻤﺒﺎﺸـﺭﺓ ﻋﻠـﻰ‬
‫ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺤﺢ ﻭﻓﻕ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺭﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﻤﻤﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﻀﻴﻑ ﻓﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺒﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺭﺡ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻠﺘﺄﻜﺩ ﻤﻤﺎ ﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺼل ﺇﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻘﺩ ﻁﺒﻕ ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺭﺡ ﻟﻌﺩﺓ ﻤﺭﺍﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺘـﺎﺌﺞ‬
‫ﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺼﻤﻤﺕ ﺤﺴﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤل ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﺸـﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ‪.‬‬
 ‫]‪[131‬‬ ‫)‪______________ 2008 (14‬‬ ‫מא‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬ ‫א‬

‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻨﺘﺎﺠﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻟﻜل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻌﺸـﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤـل ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋـﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺸﻭﺍﺌﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﻤﻠﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺒﻊ ﺍﻟﻼﺘﻴﻨﻲ ﻗﺩ ﺘﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺼل ﺇﻟﻴﻬـﺎ ﺒﺘﻁﺒﻴـﻕ ﺃﺴـﻠﻭﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﻤـﺎ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻷﻭل‪ :‬ﺇﺘﺒﺎﻉ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻱ ﻟﻠﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻨـﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻷﺴـﻠﻭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ )ﺍﻟﻤﻘﺘﺭﺡ(‪ :‬ﻫﻭ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺭﻤﺯ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻟـﺫﻱ‬
‫ﺃﻋﻁﻰ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻷﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺒﻕ ﻨﻔﺴﻬﺎ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻟﻜل ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﻤﻴﺯﺍﺘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻷﺴـﻠﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴـﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻴﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﺴﻬﻭﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ‪ .‬ﻓﻲ ﺤـﻴﻥ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺃﺴﻠﻭﺏ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻴﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﺒﺈﻋﻁﺎﺌﻪ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻜﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻴﻌﻁﻴﻬﺎ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ‪ :‬ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﻌﺎﻤـل ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ )‪ (R2‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺼل ﺇﻟﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺍﻟﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻭﺍﻓﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠـﺩﺍﻭل )‪ 1‬ﻭ‪ 2‬ﻭ‪ ،(3‬ﻭﺘﻌﻴـﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘـﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺸـﺎﺫﺓ‬
‫ﻭﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺘﻬﺎ ﻜﻤﺎ ﺃﺸﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺫﻟﻙ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ ﻭﻴﻭﻨﺱ )‪ ،(2006‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻐﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻼ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻤﺒﺎﺸﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺠﺩﻭل ﺘﺤﻠﻴـل‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻠﺠﻭﺀ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻓﻀ ﹰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺤﺢ ﻟﹻ ‪ Yates‬ﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ )ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‪ ،(2006 ،‬ﻭﻏﻴﺭﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺴﺘﻔﻴﺩ ﻤﻨﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺎﺤﺙ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫‪ -1‬ﺇﺴﻤﺎﻋﻴل‪ ،‬ﺃﻜﺭﻡ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻥ ﻭﻤﺼﻁﻔﻰ‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﺭﺤﻴﻡ ﻋﻤﺭ ﻭﻋﻤﺭ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺴﻡ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﷲ‪،‬‬
‫‪" ،2003‬ﺘﺼﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻷﻤﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺩﺓ ﻤﻨﻅﻤﺔ ﺍﻷﻏﺫﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺯﺭﺍﻋﺔ‬
‫‪ ،FAO‬ﺠﻤﻬﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ‪.‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻤﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺯﻴﺯ‪" ،2006 ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻭﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﺒﺩﻴﻠﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ"‪ ،‬ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺘﻜﺭﻴﺕ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﻴـﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﺩﺍﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‪-‬ﺠﺎﻤﻌـﺔ ﺘﻜﺭﻴﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺩ ‪ ،2‬ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ ‪ ،4‬ﺹ‬
‫‪.184-167‬‬
‫‪ -3‬ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‪ ،‬ﻤﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺯﻴﺯ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻌﻴﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺃﺴﻭﺍﻥ ﻤﺤﻤﺩ ﻁﻴﺏ‪" ،2006 ،‬ﻁﺭﺍﺌﻕ‬
‫ﻤﻘﺘﺭﺤﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﻑ"‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻗﻴﺔ ﻟﻠﻌﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻹﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺴـﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺎﺕ‪-‬ﺠﺎﻤﻌـﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺼل‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺩ ‪ ،6‬ﺍﻟﻌـﺩﺩ ‪ ،10‬ﺹ ‪-85‬‬
‫‪.106‬‬
 ...‫ـــــــــــــ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﻭﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ‬ [132]

‫ " ﺘـﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘـﻴﻡ‬،2006 ،‫ ﻓﺭﺡ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﻐﻨﻲ‬،‫ ﻤﺭﻭﺍﻥ ﻋﺒﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺯﻴﺯ ﻭﻴﻭﻨﺱ‬،‫ ﺩﺒﺩﻭﺏ‬-4
‫ ﻤﺠﻠﺔ ﻋﻠﻭﻡ‬،"‫ﺍﻟﺸﺎﺫﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺘﻁﺒﻴﻕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﻟﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺨﺩﺝ‬
.82-61 ‫ ﺹ‬،1 ‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺩﺩ‬،17 ‫ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻠﺩ‬،‫ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺼل‬-‫ ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﻠﻭﻡ‬،‫ﺍﻟﺭﺍﻓﺩﻴﻥ‬
‫ " ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨـﺔ ﻟﺒﻌﺽ ﻁﺭﺍﺌﻕ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﻭﻤﻌﺎﻟﺠـﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴــﻡ‬،2005 ،‫ ﻭﻜﺎﻉ ﻋﻠﻲ‬،‫ ﻫﺩﺒﺔ‬-5
،(‫ ﺭﺴـﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺎﺠﺴﺘﻴﺭ )ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﻨﺸﻭﺭﺓ‬،"‫ﺘﺼﺎﻤﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﺠﺎﺭﺏ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‬ ‫ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻘﻭﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ‬
.‫ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺍﻕ‬،‫ ﺠﺎﻤﻌـﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺼل‬،‫ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﻋـﻠﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﺴـﺒﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﻴﺎﻀﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻷﺠﻨﺒﻴﺔ‬
6- Agresti, A. and C. Franklin; 2007; "Statistics The Art and
Science of Learning From Data", Pearson Prentice Hall,
USA.
7- Bererson, M.; D. Levine and T. Krehbiel; 2006; "Basic
Business Stat- istics–Concept and Applications", 10th
edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA.
8- Cody, R. and J. Smith; 2006; "Applied Statistics And SAS
Programm- ing Language", 5th edition, Pearson Prentice
Hall, USA.
9- Vuchkov, I. N. and L. N. Boyadjieva; 2001; "Quality
Improvement with Design of Experiments: A Response
Surface Approach"; Kluwer Academic Publishers; London.