Upload
leo-greer
View
253
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Two-Way Balanced Independent Samples ANOVA
Computations
Partitioning the SStotal
• The total SS is divided into two sources– Cells or Model SS– Error SS– The model is
ijkjkkjijk eY
Partitioning the SScells
• The cells SS is divided into three sources– SSA, representing the main effect of factor A– SSB, representing the main effect of factor B– SSAxB, representing the A x B interaction
• These sources will be orthogonal if the design is balanced (equal sample sizes)– They sum to SScells
– Otherwise the analysis gets rather complicated.
Gender x Smoking History
• Cell n = 10, Y2 = 145,140
SMOKING HISTORY GENDER never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y marginal Male 300 200 220 250 280 1,250 (25) Female 600 300 350 450 500 2,200 (44) marginal 900 (45) 500 (25) 570 (28.5) 700 (35) 780 (39) 3,450
025,119100
3450)( 22
N
YCM
115,26025,119140,1452 CMYSSTotal
Computing Treatment SS
Square and then sum group totals, divide by the number of scores that went into each total, then subtract the CM.
SScells and SSerror
SSerror is then SStotal minus SSCells = 26,115 ‑ 15,405 =
10,710.
SMOKING HISTORY GENDER never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y marginal Male 300 200 220 250 280 1,250 (25) Female 600 300 350 450 500 2,200 (44) marginal 900 (45) 500 (25) 570 (28.5) 700 (35) 780 (39) 3,450
cellsSS
405,15
025,11910
500450350300600280250220200300 2222222222
SSgender and SSsmoke
SMOKING HISTORY GENDER never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y marginal Male 300 200 220 250 280 1,250 (25) Female 600 300 350 450 500 2,200 (44) marginal 900 (45) 500 (25) 570 (28.5) 700 (35) 780 (39) 3,450
025,9025,11950
200,2250,1 22
GenderSS
140,5
025,11920
780700570500900 22222
SmokeSS
SSSmoke x Gender
SSinteraction = SSCells SSGender SSSmoke =
15,405 ‑ 9,025 ‑ 5,140 = 1,240.
Degrees of Freedom
• dftotal = N - 1
• dfA = a - 1
• dfB = b - 1
• dfAxB = (a - 1)(b -1)
• dferror = N - ab
Source Table
Source SS df MS F p A-gender 9025 1 9025 75.84 <.001 B-smoking history 5140 4 1285 10.80 <.001 AxB interaction 1240 4 310 2.61 .041 Error 10,710 90 119 Total 26,115 99
Simple Main Effects of Gender
SS Gender, never smoked
SS Gender, stopped < 1m
SS Gender, stopped 1m ‑ 2y
SMOKING HISTORY GENDER never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y marginal Male 300 200 220 250 280 1,250 (25) Female 600 300 350 450 500 2,200 (44) marginal 900 (45) 500 (25) 570 (28.5) 700 (35) 780 (39) 3,450
500,420
900
10
600300 222
50020
500
10
300200 222
84520
570
10
350220 222
Simple Main Effects of Gender
SS Gender, stopped 2y - 7y
SS Gender stopped 7y ‑ 12 y
SMOKING HISTORY GENDER never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y marginal Male 300 200 220 250 280 1,250 (25) Female 600 300 350 450 500 2,200 (44) marginal 900 (45) 500 (25) 570 (28.5) 700 (35) 780 (39) 3,450
000,220
700
10
450250 222
420,220
780
10
500280 222
Simple Main Effects of Gender
• MS = SS / df; F = MSeffect / MSE
• MSE from omnibus model = 119 on 90 df
Smoking History SS Gender at never < 1m 1 m - 2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y F(1, 90) 37.82 4.20 7.10 16.81 20.34 p <.001 .043 .009 <.001 <.001
Interaction Plot
< 1 m 1m - 2y 2y - 7y 7y - 12 y never10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Female
Male
Delay of Stimulation
Smoking History
Ability to Detect the Scent
Simple Main Effects of Smoking
• SS Smoking history for men
• SS Smoking history for women
• Smoking history had a significant simple main effect for women, F(4, 90) = 11.97, p < .001, but not for men, F(4, 90) = 1.43, p =.23.
68050
250,1
10
280250220200300 222222
700,550
200,2
10
500450350300600 222222
Multiple Comparisons Involving A Simple Main Effect
• Smoking had a significant simple main effect for women.
• There are 5 smoking groups.• We could make 10 pairwise comparisons.• Instead, we shall make only 4 comparisons.• We compare each group of ex-smokers with
those who never smoked.
Female Ex-Smokersvs. Never Smokers
• There is a special procedure to compare each treatment mean with a control group mean (Dunnett).
• I’ll use a Bonferroni procedure instead.
• The denominator for each t will be:
.0125.405. pc
8785.4)10/110/1(119
• http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/SPSS/P-SPSS.doc
Never Smoked vs Quit
8785.4)90( ji MM
t
p Significant?
< 1 m (60-30) / 4.8785=6.149 < .001 yes 1 m - 2 y (60-35) / 4.8785=5.125 < .001 yes 2 y - 7 y (60-45) / 4.8785=3.075 .0028 yes 7 y - 12 y (60-50) / 4.8785=2.050 .0433 no
Multiple Comparisons Involving a Main Effect
• Usually done only if the main effect is significant and not involved in any significant interaction.
• For pedagogical purposes, I shall make pairwise comparisons among the marginal means for smoking.
• Here I use Bonferroni, usually I would use REGWQ.
Bonferroni Tests, Main Effect of Smoking
• c = 10, so adj. criterion = .05 / 10 = .005.• n’s are 20: 20 scores went into each mean.
L e v e l i v s j t = S i g n i f i c a n t ? 1 v s 2
80.54496.3
20)20/120/1(119/)2545(
y e s
1 v s 3 ( 4 5 - 2 8 . 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 4 . 7 8 y e s 1 v s 4 ( 4 5 - 3 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 2 . 9 0 y e s 1 v s 5 ( 4 5 - 3 9 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 1 . 7 4 n o 2 v s 3 ( 2 8 . 5 - 2 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 1 . 0 1 n o 2 v s 4 ( 3 5 - 2 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 2 . 9 0 y e s 2 v s 5 ( 3 9 - 2 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 4 . 0 6 y e s 3 v s 4 ( 3 5 - 2 8 . 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 1 . 8 8 n o 3 v s 5 ( 3 9 - 2 8 . 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 3 . 0 4 y e s 4 v s 5 ( 3 9 - 3 5 ) / 3 . 4 4 9 6 = 1 . 1 6 n o
Smoking History Mean
< 1 m 25.0A
1m - 2y 28.5AB
2y - 7y 35.0BC
7y - 12y 39.0CD
Never 45.0D
Means sharing a superscript do not differ from one another at the .05 level.
Results of Bonferroni Test
Eta-Squared
• For the interaction,
• For gender,
• For smoking history, 197.115,26
140,52
346.115,26
025,92
047.115,26
12402
CI.90 Eta-Squared
• Compute the F that would be obtained were all other effects excluded from the model.
• For gender,
nInteractioSmokeError
Gender
MS
MSF
752.51)4490/()1240514010710(
1/9025
CI.90 Eta-Squared
Partial Eta-Squared
• Value of η2 can be affected by number and magnitude of other effects in model.
• For example, if our data were only from women, SSTotal would not include SSGender and SSInteraction.
• This would increase η2.• Partial eta-squared estimates effect if were
not other effects in the model.
Partial Eta-Squared
• For the interaction,
• For gender,
• For smoking history, 324.710,10140,5
140,52
p
457.710,10025,9
025,92
p
104.714,10240,1
240,12
p
CI.90 on Partial Eta-Squared
• If you use the source table F-ratios and df with the NoncF script, it will return confidence intervals on partial eta-squared.
CI.90 on Partial Eta-Squared
Omega-Squared
• For the interaction,
• For gender,
• For smoking history, 18.234,26
)119(4140,52
34.234,26
)119(1025,92
03.234,26
764
119115,26
)119(4240,12
Assumptions
• Normality within each cell• Homogeneity of variance across cells
Advantages of Factorial ANOVA
• Economy -- study the effects of two factors for (almost) the price of one.
• Power -- removing from the error term the effects of Factor B and the interaction gives a more powerful test of Factor A.
• Interaction -- see if effect of A varies across levels of B.
One-Way ANOVA
Consider the partitioning of the sums of squares illustrated to the right.SSB = 15 and SSE = 85. Suppose there are two levels of B (an experimental manipulation) and a total of 20 cases.
Treatment Not Significant
MSB = 15, MSE = 85/18 = 4.722. The F(1, 18) = 15/4.72 = 3.176, p = .092. Woe to us, the effect of our experimental treatment has fallen short of statistical significance.
Sex Not Included in the Model
• Now suppose that the subjects here consist of both men and women and that the sexes differ on the dependent variable.
• Since sex is not included in the model, variance due to sex is error variance, as is variance due to any interaction between sex and the experimental treatment.
Add Sex to the ModelLet us see what happens if we include sex and the interaction in the model. SSSex = 25, SSB = 15, SSSex*B = 10, and SSE = 50. Notice that the SSE has been reduced by removing from it the effects of sex and the interaction.
Enhancement of PowerThe MSB is still 15, but the MSE is now 50/16 = 3.125 and the F(1, 16) = 15/3.125 = 4.80, p = .044. Notice that excluding the variance due to sex and the interaction has reduced the error variance enough that now the main effect of the experimental treatment is significant.
Footnote
• Note that the confidence interval for the interaction includes zero. This is because:– If we did not remove the effect of gender and smoking
history from the error term then the effect of the interaction would no longer be statistically significant (p = .32).
– If we wanted the CI to be equivalent to the ANOVA F test, we would use partial 2 and we would a confidence coefficient of (1 – 2) = .90.
Presenting the Results
Participants were given a test of their ability to detect the scent of a chemical thought to have pheromonal properties in humans. Each participant had been classified into one of five groups based on his or her smoking history. A 2 x 5, Gender x Smoking History, ANOVA was employed, using a .05 criterion of statistical significance and a MSE of 119 for all effects tested. There were significant main effects of gender, F(1, 90) = 75.84, p < .001, ηp
2 = .46, 90% CI [.33, .55], and smoking history, F(4, 90) = 10.80, p < .001, , ηp
2 = .33, 90% CI [.17, .41],as well as a significant interaction between gender and smoking history, F(4, 90) = 2.61, p = .041, ηp
2 = .10, 90% CI [.002, .18]. As shown in Table 1, women were better able to detect this scent than were men, and smoking reduced ability to detect the scent, with recovery of function being greater the longer the period since the participant had last smoked.
Table 1. Mean ability to detect the scent. Smoking History Gender < 1 m 1 m -2 y 2 y - 7 y 7 y - 12 y never marginal Male 20 22 25 28 30 25 Female 30 35 45 50 60 44 Marginal 25 28 35 39 45
The significant interaction was further investigated with tests of the simple main effect of smoking history. For the men, the effect of smoking history fell short of statistical significance, F(4, 90) = 1.43, p = .23. For the women, smoking history had a significant effect on ability to detect the scent, F(4, 90) = 11.97, p < .001. This significant simple main effect was followed by a set of four contrasts. Each group of female ex-smokers was compared with the group of women who had never smoked. The Bonferroni inequality was employed to cap the familywise error rate at .05 for this family of four comparisons. It was found that the women who had never smoked had a significantly better ability to detect the scent than did women who had quit smoking one month to seven years earlier, but the difference between those who never smoked and those who had stopped smoking more than seven years ago was too small to be statistically significant.
Interaction Plot
< 1 m 1m - 2y 2y - 7y 7y - 12 y never10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Female
Male
Delay of Stimulation
Smoking History
Ability to Detect the Scent