Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

71 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- One way Annova (SPSS)
- Slides[1]
- Chapter 2 Economie Monetara
- a2 Tiratira Ched Cktr Med Lcs & Te
- DCM Bayesian Inference
- Predictive Brains Forethought and the Levels of Explanation
- statsproj
- Taguchi 184 T565
- A Pilot Study to Gather and Evaluate Data on Chiropractic Treatment of LBP and NP
- ABB20110400013_71513661.pdf
- Taguchi base Grey Analysis
- a
- Regression Problem Set
- F VERSUS t TESTS FOR UNIT ROOTS
- IJETR022448
- Measurement Errors
- Anova
- Ujian Spss Aina Yunisa (020113002) Ikmb Akk 3
- Biostat Lab Prelim Exam
- Regression

You are on page 1of 10

• For 2-way interactions: df = (df for factor 1) x (df for factor 2)

• For 3-way interactions: df = (df for factor 1) x (df for factor 2) x (df for factor 3)

Etc.

Problem 14.14, p. 433 : Blood-Brain Barrier experiment in rats to investigate how delivery of brain cancer

antibody is influenced by tumor size (varied by starting treatments 8, 12 or 16 days after inoculation with

tumor cells), antibody molecular weight (varied by using 3 agents: AIB, MTX or DEX7) ,blood-brain

barrier disruption (BD = disrupted with mannitol, NS = not disrupted, saline solution), and delivery route (IA

= intra-arterial, or IV = intravenous). The response of interest was the ratio of the concentration of antibody

in the brain around the tumor (BAT) to the concentration in the other lateral half of the brain (LH). There

were thus 3x3x2x2 = 36 treatment combinations with one rat in each.

15.00

10.00

o

ti

a

R

5.00

0.00

8 12 16

Days

page 2

page 3

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 657.232a 31 21.201 4.109 .089

Intercept 967.140 1 967.140 187.447 .000

Agent 7.270 2 3.635 .705 .547

Treatment 342.624 1 342.624 66.406 .001

Route 116.143 1 116.143 22.510 .009

Days 6.489 2 3.244 .629 .579

Agent * Treatment 3.961 2 1.981 .384 .704

Agent * Route .896 2 .448 .087 .919

Agent * Days 23.945 4 5.986 1.160 .444

Treatment * Route 37.116 1 37.116 7.194 .055

Treatment * Days 6.720 2 3.360 .651 .569

Route * Days 31.839 2 15.920 3.085 .155

Agent * Treatment * Route 1.802 2 .901 .175 .846

Agent * Treatment * Days 42.752 4 10.688 2.072 .249

Agent * Route * Days 15.170 4 3.792 .735 .614

Treatment * Route * Days 20.505 2 10.253 1.987 .252

Error 20.638 4 5.160

Total 1645.011 36

Corrected Total 677.870 35

a. R Squared = .970 (Adjusted R Squared = .734)

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 577.003a 19 30.369 4.817 .001

Intercept 967.140 1 967.140 153.412 .000

Agent 7.270 2 3.635 .577 .573

Treatment 342.624 1 342.624 54.349 .000

Route 116.143 1 116.143 18.423 .001

Days 6.489 2 3.244 .515 .607

Agent * Treatment 3.961 2 1.981 .314 .735

Agent * Route .896 2 .448 .071 .932

Agent * Days 23.945 4 5.986 .950 .461

Treatment * Route 37.116 1 37.116 5.887 .027

Treatment * Days 6.720 2 3.360 .533 .597

Route * Days 31.839 2 15.920 2.525 .111

Error 100.867 16 6.304

Total 1645.011 36

Corrected Total 677.870 35

a. R Squared = .851 (Adjusted R Squared = .675)

page 4

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 472.526a 6 78.754 11.122 .000

Intercept 967.140 1 967.140 136.585 .000

Agent 7.270 2 3.635 .513 .604

Treatment 342.624 1 342.624 48.387 .000

Route 116.143 1 116.143 16.402 .000

Days 6.489 2 3.244 .458 .637

Error 205.345 29 7.081

Total 1645.011 36

Corrected Total 677.870 35

a. R Squared = .697 (Adjusted R Squared = .634)

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 509.642a 7 72.806 12.118 .000

Intercept 967.140 1 967.140 160.971 .000

Agent 7.270 2 3.635 .605 .553

Treatment 342.624 1 342.624 57.026 .000

Route 116.143 1 116.143 19.331 .000

Days 6.489 2 3.244 .540 .589

Treatment * Route 37.116 1 37.116 6.178 .019

Error 168.229 28 6.008

Total 1645.011 36

Corrected Total 677.870 35

a. R Squared = .752 (Adjusted R Squared = .690)

page 5

Alternative parameterizations of the ANOVA model

Suppose we have a two-way classification; that is, two categorical explanatory variables and a quantitative

response. As we’ve seen, the ANOVA model can be written as a regression model using indicator variables.

For example, suppose the two factors are A and B and that A has 3 levels and B has 4 levels. Then the

model with main effects but not the two-way interaction is:

µ (Y ) = β 0 + β1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 3 X 3 + β 4 X 4 + β 5 X 5

where

X 1 = 1 if A = 1 and 0 otherwise

X 2 = 1 if A = 2, and 0 otherwise

X 3 = 1 if B = 1 and 0 otherwise

X 4 = 1 if B = 2 and 0 otherwise

X 5 = 1 if B = 3 and 0 otherwise

• In this parameterization of the model, β 0 represents the mean of Y when A = 3 and B = 4 (the

reference levels). β1 represents the additive effect of being in level A =1 (compared to A = 3) and

β1 represents the additive effect of being in level A =2 compared to A = 3. Similarly, β 3 represents

the additive effect of being in level B =1 (versus B = 4), and so on.

• Each of the β’s represents the deviation from the reference level for that factor.

H 0 : β1 = β 2 = 0

and is tested with an extra sum-of-squares F-test by comparing the full model with X 1 and X 2 in it

to the reduced model without them.

H 0 : β3 = β4 = β5 = 0

• The interaction between A and B would be included by including all possible products of an indicator

variable for A and one for B: X 1 X 3 , X 1 X 4 , X 1 X 5 , X 2 X 3 , X 2 X 4 , X 2 X 5 . This would add 6 more

parameters to the model.

page 6

Another way to parameterize the additive two-way ANOVA model is as follows:

µ ij = µ + α i + β j

where µ ij represents the mean response in cell i-j (level i of variable A and level j of variable B). We have

the restriction that ∑ α i = 0 , ∑ β j =0.

• In this parameterization, µ represents the overall mean response over all cells, α i represents the A

effect (the difference between the mean for level i of A and the mean for A), and β j represents the B

effect (the difference between the mean for level i of A and the mean for A). The restriction that

∑ α i = 0 , ∑ β j =0 simply reflects the fact that the deviations from the overall mean must sum to 0.

• In this model, the hypothesis of no effect of A on mean response is:

H 0 : α1 = α 2 = α 3 = 0

H 0 : β1 = β 2 = β 3 = β 4 = 0

Example 1

It’s easiest to start with an example with only one factor, say A, which has 3 levels as above. Suppose that

the true group means are µ1 = 5, µ 2 = 8, and µ 3 = 14. These three means can be written as a regression

model as:

µ (Y ) = 14 − 9 X 1 − 6 X 2

where X 1 and X 2 are the indicator variables defined above. Check to see that this model gives the desired

means:

µi = µ + α i

Note that the α i ’s sum to 0.

Example 2

Let’s return to the two-factor model on the previous page and suppose the cell means are:

page 7

5.

Note that these means follow an additive model: the effect of moving from level 1 to level 2 of A, for

example, is the same (increase of 4), for every level of B. Thus, we can reproduce these means using the

additive model with either parameterization:

µ = 6, α 1 = µ1• − µ = -1, α 2 = µ 2• − µ = 0, α 3 = µ 3• − µ = 1,

β1 = µ •1 − µ = -1, β 2 = µ •2 − µ = 3, β 3 = µ •3 − µ = 0, β 4 = µ •4 − µ = -2

where µ1• is the mean for A=1, averaged over all levels of B, µ •1 is the mean for B=1 averaged over all

levels of A, etc.

If the cell means do not follow an additive model, then we need additional parameters to reproduce the cell

means. In the regression formulation, we get these by adding the 6 pairwise products of the indicator

variables for A and B. In the alternative parameterization, we get them by adding an extra interaction term

for each cell, denoted (αβ ) ij (this notation indicates that the term is the interaction term for A and B). The

(αβ ) ij ’s sum to 0 over all i for each j and also sum to 0 over all j for each i. With these restrictions, there are

only (i-1)(j-1) unique interaction parameters.

We can incorporate the error term into either parameterization by replacing µ ij by Yij on the left hand side,

representing an individual response rather than the mean response for the cell:

Yij = µ + α i + β j + ε ij

page 8

Random effects

Our ANOVA analyses so far have treated all factors as fixed. That is, we’re only interested in these

particular levels of the factor and we assume each level has some fixed effect on the response. The

hypotheses we test in the analysis of these data using ANOVA are whether these fixed effects are 0 or not

and the confidence intervals are for the size of the effect. The scope of inference in these studies is only to

the particular levels of the factors studied.

• If we treat a factor as a random effect, then we are assuming that the particular levels of the factor

used in the study were a random sample from a larger population of possible levels and that we wish

our inferences to be to this larger population.

Example: randomized complete block design. A study was performed to compare the yields of four varieties

of cowpea hay (the treatment). Three areas of land (blocks) were each divided into four plots and each of

the four varieties was randomly assigned to one plot in each block.

• It makes sense to treat Variety as a fixed effect since there is probably not a larger population of

varieties from which these four were randomly selected and to which we wish to make inferences.

• However, we could treat Block as a fixed effect or a random effect. If we treat it as a fixed effect,

then the inferences about differences between varieties are only to these three blocks. If these three

blocks are a random sample of blocks from a population of blocks, we could treat Block as a random

effect. Then, the inferences about differences between treatments would apply to the population of

all blocks.

The additive model for yield as a function of Treatment and Block would be written this way:

yij = µ + α i + β j + ε ij

4

• Since treatment is a fixed effect, then ∑α i = 0 .

i =1

3

• If Block is a fixed effect, then ∑ β j = 0. The inferences about Treatment differences apply only to

j =1

these blocks. Inferences about Block concern whether or not there are differences among these three

blocks.

• If Block is a random effect, then we assume that the β j ’s are independent random draws from a

normal distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation σ b . That is, we assume that every block in

page 9

the population has its own block effect and that these effects are distributed as a N (0, σ b )

distribution. The three block effects we’ve observed are independent random draws from this

distribution and don’t necessarily sum to 0.

• Treating Block as a random effect only makes sense if the blocks can be viewed as a random sample

from a larger population of blocks. For example, if the blocks are adjacent strips of land, then it

would be difficult to justify treating Block as a random effect. This is because adjacent blocks of

land are likely similar and cannot be viewed as independent draws from some population of strips.

• If Block is a random effect , inferences about Treatment differences can be generalized to the

population of blocks. Inferences about Block differences are inferences about σ b . The test of Block

differences is a test of

H 0 : σ b = 0 vs. H A : σ b > 0

We can also estimate σ b , just as we can estimate σ, the error standard deviation.

Whether an effect is considered fixed or random can affect the tests of all the effects in a model.

• In a randomized complete block design without replication, the tests of the Treatment and Block effects

is the same whether Block is treated as fixed or random. This model does not include the Block by

Treatment interaction because there is no replication. Note: treating Block as a random effect must be

justified, as noted above.

• In a randomized complete block design with replication, where the Block by Treatment interaction can

be estimated, then the test of Treatment effect is changed when we treat Block as a random factor. The

denominator in the F test for the Treatment effect becomes the Block by Treatment interaction, not the

Error term. One way to see why this should be so is that we can view Block as the primary “sampling”

unit and plot within block as the secondary sampling unit. Inferences about response are always based

on the number of primary sampling units.

• Treating Block as a random effect usually makes it more difficult to detect differences among

Treatments because the Block by Treatment mean square is usually bigger than the MSE and its

degrees of freedom are less. This reflects the fact that the Block by Treatment interaction includes two

sources of variability: variability between blocks and variability between replicates within blocks.

However, treating Block as a random effect expands the scope of the inferences so there is a tradeoff.

SPSS automatically does the right tests if you specify the random and fixed effects in the General Linear

Model procedure.

• Sometimes the subjects in an experiment are used as blocks (each receives more than one treatment)

and are treated as a random effect if they can be viewed as a random sample from a larger population of

possible subjects.

• You are not justified in treating a factor as a random effect unless you can truly view the levels as a

random sample of possible levels. However, even if you are justified in treating a factor as a random

page 10

effect, you do not have to. If you want the scope of your inferences to be to just the levels you actually

chose, then you could treat it as a fixed effect.

• Models with only fixed effects (except for the error term) are referred to as fixed effects models,

models with only random effects are random effects models, and models with both fixed and random

effects are mixed effects models or mixed models.

• σ b2 and σ 2 are referred to as variance components. Additional random factors will add additional

variance components. Estimating the variance components is often important, but can be difficult.

- One way Annova (SPSS)Uploaded byArun Behl
- Slides[1]Uploaded bysteveraper
- Chapter 2 Economie MonetaraUploaded byOana Caz
- a2 Tiratira Ched Cktr Med Lcs & TeUploaded byCarlo Magno
- DCM Bayesian InferenceUploaded bytomasgoucha
- Predictive Brains Forethought and the Levels of ExplanationUploaded byGiuseppe Boccignone
- statsprojUploaded byapi-257819714
- Taguchi 184 T565Uploaded byOctavio Romero
- A Pilot Study to Gather and Evaluate Data on Chiropractic Treatment of LBP and NPUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- ABB20110400013_71513661.pdfUploaded byjanak
- Taguchi base Grey AnalysisUploaded byamalendu_biswas_1
- aUploaded byTan Sri
- Regression Problem SetUploaded byLeanne_Tan_8106
- F VERSUS t TESTS FOR UNIT ROOTSUploaded byGurgen Ohanyan
- IJETR022448Uploaded byerpublication
- Measurement ErrorsUploaded byDavid Adeabah Osafo
- AnovaUploaded byIqra Jawed
- Ujian Spss Aina Yunisa (020113002) Ikmb Akk 3Uploaded bynadiyaregita
- Biostat Lab Prelim ExamUploaded byApril Mergelle Lapuz
- RegressionUploaded byhimanshu sagar
- RegressionUploaded byVikas
- Student Success, Retention, And Graduation- Definitions, Theories, Practices, Patterns, And TrendsUploaded byandikaisnaeni
- unit 4 calendarUploaded byapi-410390619
- Book4Uploaded byAstuti
- 141767_SOAL PTK PAR 2016Uploaded byAnton Prayoga
- HomogeneityUploaded byDara
- EconomicsUploaded byMuhammad Adeel
- Solution Design and Analysis 6.1Uploaded byElisa Lumban Gaol
- statistikUploaded bySusana Moe
- MoviesUploaded byAkash Gupta

- Model- vs. design-based sampling and variance estimationUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- ReviewChaps3-4Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- SampleSizeCalcRevisitedUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Hypo%26PowerLectureUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- ReviewChaps1-2Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Non%26ParaBootUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 21Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 20Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 13Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 12Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 11Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 8Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 10Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 9Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 5Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 6Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter5p2LectureUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Chapter 7Uploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- An Ova PowerUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Intro BootstrapUploaded byMichalaki Xrisoula
- Good Article on Standard Error vs Standard DeviationUploaded byAshok Kumar Bharathidasan
- Data Modeling: General Linear Model &Statistical InferenceUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Bio Math 94 CLUSTERING POPULATIONS BY MIXED LINEAR MODELSUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- GRM: Generalized Regression Model for Clustering Linear SequencesUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- Clustering in the Linear ModelUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- R Matrix TutorUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.
- The not so Short Introduction to LaTeXUploaded byoetiker
- Close Out NettingUploaded byFanny Sylvia C.

- 12-Multiple Comparison ProcedureUploaded byDani Garnida
- Influence of Exercise Order in a Resistance Training Exercise SessionUploaded byReynaldo Triana
- ps1-sol.pdfUploaded byAvinash Jaiswal
- Laicane & Al. (2014) - Determinants of Household Electricity Consumption SavingsUploaded byRoz Krakra
- ES112MLTest1SUploaded bychunxi
- Gujarati BookUploaded byManuel Antonio Díaz Flores
- Project 4 DescriptionUploaded byRobthebuilder
- methadologu groupppppUploaded bySamia Baqai
- QM - Jan 2009Uploaded byShravan Wadhwa
- Types of Samplin1Uploaded byAbhijeet Anand
- MixSimUploaded byJose Alirio
- MBA_SyllabusUploaded byprovoke_abhi
- 2014 Short-Term Effects of Patellar Kinesio Taping on Pain and Hop Function in Patients With Patellofemoral Pain SyndromeUploaded byLorena Winkler
- Lean Sigma - Rebuilding Capabilities in Healthcare.pdfUploaded by5landers
- Prml Slides 3Uploaded bySaurabh Shukla
- Tipology Mixed Methods CreswellUploaded byabelardo65
- Manova and AncovaUploaded byNeraLogo
- TI-82 GuidebookUploaded byortanicholas9303
- Statistical Approach to PPQUploaded byvg_vvg
- Executive Summary: Police Incident Analysis at Penn State Football GamesUploaded byJuan Devia
- Ch6 Evans BA1e Case SolutionUploaded byyarli7777
- Asorpar Case StudyUploaded byElizabeth Acosta
- Chapter 07Uploaded byHasan Tarek
- The Behavioral Aspect of Mergers AndUploaded bynisarg_
- CriminologyUploaded byDatu Perez Abang
- ACL9 ACL in Practice Guide PDFUploaded byraluchii
- Pairwise Granger Causality TestsUploaded byThobias Yagi
- NSI07bUploaded byzsiddiqui
- BinomialUploaded byRamesh Mariappan
- SynopsisUploaded byrenu_barik

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.