TOPIC 7.

1 :
Friedman Two Way
Analysis Of
Variance By Ranks

LEARNING OUTCOME

At the end of this lesson, students
should be able to determine if we may
conclude from the sample that there is
difference among treatment effects by
using Friedman Test.

FRIEDMAN TEST

 The test presented in this section is a
nonparametric analogue of the
parametric one-way ANOVA repeated
measurement.
 The sample population are normally
distributed.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. The data consist of b mutually independent
samples(blocks) of size k. The typical
observation X
ij
is the jth observation in the
ith sample(block). Rows represent the
blocks and the columns are called
treatments.
2. The variable of interest is continuous.
3. There is no interaction between blocks and
treatments.
4. The observations within each block may
be ranked in order of magnitude.

Continue…
Table 7.1 Data display for the Friedman two- way
analysis of variance by ranks

bk bi b b b
ik ij i i i
k j
k j
k j
X X X X X b
X X X X X i
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X X
k j
 

 
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 3 33 32 31
2 2 23 22 21
1 1 13 12 11
3
2
1
3 2 1
Treatment
Block

HYPOTHESES

H
o
: M
1
= M
2
= … = M
k

H
1
: At least one equality is violated

TEST STATISTIC

First step:
 Convert the original observations to ranks
 In Friedman test the observation within each
block are ranked separately from smallest to
largest

Second step:
 Obtain the sums of the ranks R
j
in each
column.

The Friedman test statistic is defined as:

2 2
1
12
3 ( 1)
( 1)
k
r j
j
R b k
bk k
_
=
= ÷ +
+
¿
2 2
1
12
3 ( 1)
( 1)
k
r j
j
R b k
bk k
_
=
= ÷ +
+
¿
Equation 7.1

Equation 7.2
2
2
1
12 ( 1)
( 1) 2
k
r j
j
b k
R
bk k
_
=
+
(
= ÷
(
+
¸ ¸
¿
Show that
Equation 7.1 = Equation 7.2

2
2
1
12 ( 1)
( 1) 2
k
r j
j
b k
R
bk k
_
=
+
(
= ÷
(
+
¸ ¸
¿
1 1
( 1) and 1
2
k k
j
j j
k
Given R k b k
= =
(
= + =
(
¸ ¸
¿ ¿
(
¸
(

¸

+
+
+
÷
+
=
¿ ¿ ¿
= = =
k
j
k
j
j
k
j
j
k b k b
R R
k bk
1
2 2
1 1
2
4
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
12
2
1
12
6 ( 1) 3 ( 1)
( 1)
k
j
j
R b k b k
bk k
=
= ÷ + + +
+
¿
2 2
2 2
1
12 ( 1)
[ ( 1)]
( 1) 2 4
k
j
j
k b k
R b k k
bk k
=
(
+
= ÷ + +
(
+
¸ ¸
¿
2 2
2
1
12 ( 1)
( 1) [ ( 1)]
( 1) 2 4
k
j
j
k b k
R k b b k k
bk k
=
(
+
= ÷ + + +
(
+
¸ ¸
¿
2
1
12
3 ( 1)
( 1)
k
j
j
R b k
bk k
=
= ÷ +
+
¿ (Equation 7.2)
DECISION

Reject H
o
if

2 2
(1 , 1) r k o
_ _
÷ ÷
>
Example 1

Hall et al. * compared three methods of
determining serum amylase values in
patients with pancreatitis. The result are
shown in table 7.2. We wish to know whether
these data indicate a difference among the
three methods. Given

05 . 0 = o
*Hall, F.F., T. W. Culp,T. Hayakawa, C. R. Ratliff, and N. C.
Hightower,"An Improved Amylase Assay Using a New Starch
Derivative,” Amer. J. Clin. Pathol.,53 (1970),627-634

Serum amylase values (enzyme units per 100 ml of
serum) in patients with pancreatitis
Table 7.2

Specimen
Methods of determination
A B C
1 4000 3210 6120
2 1600 1040 2410
3 1600 647 2210
4 1200 570 2060
5 840 445 1400
6 352 156 249
7 224 155 224
8 200 99 208
9 184 70 227
HYPOTHESES

H
o
: M
A
= M
B
= M
C

H
1
: At least one equality is violated (claim)

TEST STATISTIC

b = 9, k = 3
After convert the original observations to ranks, we
have

Specimen
Methods of determination
A B C
1 2 1 3
2 2 1 3
3 2 1 3
4 2 1 3
5 2 1 3
6 3 1 2
7 2.5 1 2.5
8 2 1 3
9 2 1 3
R
A
= 19.5 R
B
= 9 R
C
= 25.5
By equation, we have

5 . 15
108 5 . 123
=
÷ =
2 2
1
3, 9
12
3 ( 1)
( 1)
k
r j
j
k b
R b k
bk k
_
=
= =
= ÷ +
+
¿
2 2 2
12
(19.5 9 25.5 ) (3)(9)(4)
(9)(3)(4)
= + + ÷

From table A.11, ,

Since then we reject

Enough evidence to support the claim that
the three methods do not all yield identical
results.

0
H
2
(0.95,2)
5.991 _ =
2
(1 , 1) k o
_
÷ ÷
0.05, 3 k o = =
15.5 5.991 >
DECISION
CONCLUSION
EXERCISE
1.A study of effects of three drugs on reaction time
of human subjects resulted in the data in table
below. Do these data provide sufficient evidence
to indicate that the three drugs differ in their
effects? Let α = 0.05

Change in response time (milliseconds) of 10 subjects after receiving one of
three drugs

Answer: 8.45 > 5.991, reject H
o

Drug Subject
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A 10 10 11 8 7 15 14 10 9 10
B 10 15 15 12 12 10 12 14 9 14
C 15 20 12 10 9 15 18 17 12 16
2.Perry et al.* determined plasma epinephrine
concentrations during isoflurane, halothane, and
cyclopropane anesthesia in 10 dogs. The results are
shown in table below. Do these data suggest a
difference in treatment effects? Let α = 0.05
Concentrations, nanogram per milliliter, of free catecholamines in
arterial plasma response to isoflurane, halothane, and cyclopropane.

Drug 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Isoflurane 0.28 0.51 1.00 0.39 0.29 0.36 0.32 0.69 0.17 0.33
Halothane 0.30 0.39 0.63 0.38 0.21 0.88 0.39 0.51 0.32 0.42
Cyclopropane 1.07 1.35 0.69 0.28 1.24 1.53 0.49 0.56 1.02 0.30
*Perry, Lawrence B., Russell A. Van Dyke, and Richard A. Theye, "Sympathoadrenal and Hemodynamic

Effects of Isoflurane, Halothane, and Cyclopropane in Dogs,”Anesthesiology, 40 (1974), 465-470.

Answer : 2.6 < 5.991 , do not reject H
o

3.Syme and Pollard*

conducted an experiment to
investigate the effect of different motivation levels
on measures of food-getting dominance in the
laboratory rat. The data shown in table below are
the amounts of food in grams eaten by eight male
hooded rats following 0, 24 and 72 hours of food
deprivation. Do these data provide sufficient
evidence to indicate a difference in the effects of
the three levels of food deprivation? Let α = 0.05

Subject Hours of food deprivation
0 24 72
1 3.5 5.9 13.9
2 3.7 8.1 12.6
3 1.6 8.1 8.1
4 2.5 8.6 6.8
5 2.8 8.1 14.3
6 2.0 5.9 4.2
7 5.9 9.5 14.5
8 2.5 7.9 7.9
Amount of food, grams, eaten by eight rats under three level of food deprivation

* Syme, G. J., and J. S. Pollard, "The Relation between Differences in Level of Food Deprivation and Dominance
in Food Getting in the Rat," Psychon, Sci.,29 (1972),297-298.

Answer : , thus we reject

991 . 5 25 . 12 >
0
H
For the solution, you can refer to