13 views

Uploaded by engr

- ANOVA Full Factorial Design
- StylebookQuizonStatisticalTerms Answers
- DO_s2012_083
- Experiments Montgomery
- Perception Precedes Computation
- Full Text
- The Promising New Frontiers.docx
- stat12t_1203.ppt
- Chapter 6 Book
- SixSigma GB+Module
- Lala Bert
- cleaver goldenrod gall report
- BSE 10 Market Capitalization folows Sentiment of Investors or Technical Methods- An analytical study
- Chapter 10, CBS
- handout2_glm
- Minitab Samples
- s12155-008-9018-6] Ezhumalai Sasikumar; Thangavelu Viruthagiri -- Optimization of Process Conditions Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
- Descriptive Statistics
- The Value of Gold vs Stock Market
- asadian

You are on page 1of 30

Chapter 11

Analysis of Variance and

Design of Experiments

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

The focus of this chapter is learning about the design of experiments and the analysis of

variance thereby enabling you to:

1.

Understand the differences between various experiment designs and when to use

them.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

This important chapter opens the door for students to a broader view of statistics

than they have seen to this time. Through the topic of experimental designs, the student

begins to understand how they can scientifically set up controlled experiments in which

to test certain hypotheses. They learn about independent and dependent variables. With

the completely randomized design, the student can see how the t test for two independent

samples can be expanded to include three or more samples by using analysis of variance.

This is something that some of the more curious students were probably wondering about

in chapter 10. Through the randomized block design and the factorial designs, the

student can understand how we can analyze not only multiple categories of one variable,

but we can simultaneously analyze multiple variables with several categories each. Thus,

this chapter affords the instructor an opportunity to help the student develop a structure

for statistical analysis.

In this chapter, we emphasize that the total sum of squares in a given problem do

not change. In the completely randomized design, the total sums of squares are parceled

into between treatments sum of squares and error sum of squares. By using a blocking

design when there is significant blocking, the blocking effects are removed from the error

effects which reduces the size of the mean square error and can potentially create a more

powerful test of the treatment. A similar thing happens in the two-way factorial design

when one significant treatment variable siphons off sum of squares from the error term

that reduces the mean square error and creates potential for a more powerful test of the

other treatment variable.

In presenting the random block design in this chapter, the emphasis is on

determining if the F value for the treatment variable is significant or not. We have de

emphasized examining the F value of the blocking effects. However, if the blocking

effects are not significant, the random block design may be a less powerful analysis of the

treatment effects. If the blocking effects are not significant, even though the error sum of

squares is reduced, the mean square error might increase because the blocking effects

may reduce the degrees of freedom error in a proportional greater amount. This might

result in a smaller treatment F value than would occur in a completely randomized

design. We have shown the repeated measures design in the chapter as a special case of

the random block design.

In factorial designs, if there are multiple values in the cells, it is possible to

analyze interaction effects. Random block designs do not have multiple values in cells

and therefore interaction effects cannot be calculated. It is emphasized in this chapter

that if significant interaction occurs, then the main effects analysis are confounded and

should not be analyzed in the usual manner. There are various philosophies about how to

handle significant interaction but are beyond the scope of this chapter. The main factorial

example problem in the chapter was created to have no significant interaction so that the

student can learn how to analyze main effects. The demonstration problem has

significant interaction and these interactions are displayed graphically for the student to

see. You might consider taking this same problem and graphing the interactions using

Row effects along the x axis and graphing the Column means for the student to see.

There are a number of multiple comparison tests available. In this text, I selected

one of the more well-known tests, Tukey's HSD, in the case of equal sample sizes. When

sample sizes are unequal, a variation on Tukeys HSD, the Tukey-Kramer test, is used.

MINITAB uses the Tukey test as one of its options under multiple comparisons and uses

the Tukey-Kramer test for unequal sample sizes. Tukey's HSD is one of the more

powerful multiple comparison tests but protects less for Type I errors than some of the

other tests.

CHAPTER OUTLINE

11.2 The Completely Randomized Design (One-Way ANOVA)

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Reading the F Distribution Table

Using the Computer for One-Way ANOVA

Comparison of F and t Values

11.3 Multiple Comparison Tests

Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) Test: The Case of Equal Sample

Sizes

Using the Computer to Do Multiple Comparisons

Tukey-Kramer Procedure: The Case of Unequal Sample Sizes

11.4 The Randomized Block Design

Using the Computer to Analyze Randomized Block Designs

11.5 A Factorial Design (Two-Way ANOVA)

Advantages of the Factorial Design

Factorial Designs with Two Treatments

Applications

Statistically Testing the Factorial Design

Interaction

Using a Computer to Do a Two-Way ANOVA

KEY TERMS

a posteriori

a priori

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

Blocking Variable

Classification Variables

Classifications

Completely Randomized Design

Concomitant Variables

Confounding Variables

Dependent Variable

Experimental Design

F Distribution

F Value

Factorial Design

Factors

Independent Variable

Interaction

Levels

Multiple Comparisons

One-way Analysis of Variance

Post-hoc

Randomized Block Design

Repeated Measures Design

Treatment Variable

Tukey-Kramer Procedure

Tukeys HSD Test

Two-way Analysis of Variance

11.1 a) Time Period, Market Condition, Day of the Week, Season of the Year

b) Time Period - 4 P.M. to 5 P.M. and 5 P.M. to 6 P.M.

Market Condition - Bull Market and Bear Market

Day of the Week - Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday

Season of the Year - Summer, Winter, Fall, Spring

c) Volume, Value of the Dow Jones Average, Earnings of Investment Houses

11.2 a) Type of 737, Age of the plane, Number of Landings per Week of the plane, City

that the plane is based

b) Type of 737 - Type I, Type II, Type III

Age of plane - 0-2 y, 3-5 y, 6-10 y, over 10 y

Number of Flights per Week - 0-5, 6-10, over 10

City - Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Detroit

c) Average annual maintenance costs, Number of annual hours spent on

maintenance

11.3 a) Type of Card, Age of User, Economic Class of Cardholder, Geographic Region

b) Type of Card - Mastercard, Visa, Discover, American Express

Age of User - 21-25 y, 26-32 y, 33-40 y, 41-50 y, over 50

Economic Class - Lower, Middle, Upper

Geographic Region - NE, South, MW, West

c) Average number of card usages per person per month,

Average balance due on the card, Average per expenditure per person,

Number of cards possessed per person

11.4

Average dollar expenditure per day/night, Age of adult registering the family,

Number of days stay (consecutive)

11.5

Source

df

Treatment

Error

2

14

14.03 1.00

Total

16

36.24

= .05

SS

MS

Since the observed F = 11.07 > F.05,2,14 = 3.74, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.6

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

4

18

26.67 1.48

Total

22

= .01

120.43

Since the observed F = 15.82 > F.01,4,18 = 4.58, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.7

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

3

12

167.5 14.0

Total

15

711.8

= .01

Since the observed F = 13.00 > F.01,3,12 = 5.95, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.8

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

1

12

64.29

43.43

64.29 17.76

3.62

Total

13

107.71

= .05

Since the observed F = 17.76 > F.05,1,12 = 4.75, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

Observed t value using t test:

1

n1 = 7

x 1 = 29

s1 2 = 3

t =

= 4.22

3(6) + (4.238)(6) 1 1

+

7+72

7 7

Also, t =

11.9

Source

Treatment

Error

Total

2

n2 = 7

x 2 = 24.71

s22 = 4.238

F = 17.76 = 4.214

SS

583.39

972.18

1,555.57

df

MS

4 145.8475

50 19.4436

54

F

7.50

11.10 Source

SS

df

MS

4.82 3.03

4.887

Treatment

Error

29.64

68.42

2

14

Total

98.06

16

F.05,2,14 = 3.74

Since the observed F = 3.03 < F.05,2,14 = 3.74, the decision is to fail to reject

the null hypothesis

11.11 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

3

15

.007076

.003503

.002359

.000234

10.10

Total

18

.010579

= .01

Since the observed F = 10.10 > F.01,3,15 = 5.42, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.12 Source

df

SS

Treatment

Error

2

12

180700000

11699999

Total

14

192400000

= .01

MS

90350000

975000

92.67

Since the observed F = 92.67 > F.01,2,12 = 6.93, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.13 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

2

15

29.61

18.89

14.80

1.26

Total

17

48.50

= .05

F

11.76

Since the observed F = 11.76 > F.05,2,15 = 3.68, the decison is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.14 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

3

16

456630

220770

152210

13798

11.03

Total

19

677400

= .05

Since the observed F = 11.03 > F.05,3,16 = 3.24, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.15 There are 4 treatment levels. The sample sizes are 18, 15, 21, and 11. The F

value is 2.95 with a p-value of .04. There is an overall significant difference at

alpha of .05. The means are 226.73, 238.79, 232.58, and 239.82.

11.16 The independent variable for this study was plant with five classification levels

(the five plants). There were a total of 43 workers who participated in the study.

The dependent variable was number of hours worked per week. An observed F

value of 3.10 was obtained with an associated p-value of .02659. With an alpha

of .05, there was a significant overall difference in the average number of hours

worked per week by plant. A cursory glance at the plant averages revealed that

workers at plant 3 averaged 61.47 hours per week (highest number) while workers

at plant 4 averaged 49.20 (lowest number).

11.17 C = 6

= .05

MSE = .3352

q.05,6,40 = 4.23

HSD = 4.23

n3 = 8

N = 46

x 3 = 15.85

n6 = 7

x 6 = 17.2

.3352 1 1

+ = 0.896

2 8 7

Since 1.36 > 0.896, there is a significant difference between the means of

groups 3 and 6.

11.18 C = 4

n=6

MSE = 2.389

HSD = q

11.19 C = 3

N = 24

dferror = N - C = 24 - 4 = 20

q.05,4,20 = 3.96

MSE

2.389

= (3.96)

= 2.50

n

6

MSE = 1.0

q.05,3,14 = 3.70

HSD = 3.70

n1 = 6

= .05

n2 = 5

N = 17

x1=2

x 2 = 4.6

1.00 1 1

+ = 1.584

2 6 5

x1 x 2 = 2 4.6 = 2.6

Since 2.6 > 1.584, there is a significant difference between the means of

groups 1 and 2.

n2 = 5

MSE = 1.48

= .01

n4 = 5

C=5

10

N = 23

q.01,5,23 = 5.29

HSD = 5.29

1.48 1 1

+ = 2.88

2 5 5

x 2 = 10

x 4 = 16

x 3 x 6 = 10 16 = 6

groups 2 and 4.

11.21 N = 16

n=4

HSD = q

C=4

N - C = 12

MSE = 14

q.01,4,12 = 5.50

MSE

14

= 5.50

= 10.29

n

4

x 1 = 115.25

x 2 = 125.25

x 3 = 131.5

x 4 = 122.5

x 1 and x 3 are the only pair that are significantly different using the

HSD test.

11.22 n = 7

C=2

MSE = 3.62

N = 14

= .05

q.05,2,12 = 3.08

HSD = q

MSE

3.62

= 3.08

= 2.215

n

7

N - C = 14 - 2 = 12

x 1 = 29 and x 2 = 24.71

Since x 1 - x 2 = 4.29 > HSD = 2.215, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.23 C = 4

MSE = .000234

q.01,4,15 = 5.25

n1 = 4

= .01

n2 = 6

n3 = 5

11

N = 19

n4 = 4

HSD1,2 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0367

2 4 6

HSD1,3 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0381

2

4 5

HSD1,4 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0402

2 4 4

HSD2,3 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0344

2

6 5

HSD2,4 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0367

2 6 4

HSD3,4 = 5.25

.000234 1 1

+ = .0381

2

5 4

x1 x 3 = .056

This is the only pair of means that are significantly different.

11.24 = .01

k=3

n=5

MSE

n

= 5.04

HSD = q

x 1 = 28,400

N = 15

975,000

5

x 2 = 36,900

12

N - k = 12

MSE = 975,000

= 2,225.6

x 3 = 32,800

x 1 x 2 = 8,500

x1 x 3 = 4,400

x 2 x 3 = 4,100

Using Tukey's HSD, all three pairwise comparisons are significantly different.

11.25 = .05

C=3

q.05,3,15 = 3.67

N = 18

n1 = 5

N-C = 15

n2 = 7

n3 = 6

x 1 = 7.6

x 2 = 8.8571

HSD1,2 = 3.67

1.26 1 1

+ = 1.706

2 5 7

HSD1,3 = 3.67

1.26 1 1

+ = 1.764

2 7 6

HSD2,3 = 3.67

1.26 1 1

+ = 1.621

2 7 6

x 2 x 3 = 3.024 (is significant)

MSE = 1.26

x 3 = 5.83333

11.26 = .05

x 1 = 591

HSD = q

n=5

C=4

x 2 = 350

N = 20

13

N - C = 16

x 3 = 776

MSE = 13,798

x 4 = 563

MSE

13,798

= 4.05

= 212.75

n

5

x1 x 2 = 241

x1 x 3 = 185

x1 x 4 = 28

x 2 x 3 = 426

x 2 x 4 = 213

x 3 x 4 = 213

Using Tukey's HSD = 212.75, only means 1 and 2 and means 2 and 3 are

significantly different.

11.27

= .05

There were five plants and ten pairwise comparisons. The MINITAB

output revealed that the only pairwise significant difference was between plant 2

and plant 3. The reported confidence interval went from 22.46 to 0.18 which

contains the same sign indicating that 0 is not in the interval.

11.28 H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

Ha: At least one treatment mean is different from the others

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

3

4

12

62.95

257.50

45.30

Total

19

365.75

= .05

20.98 5.56

64.38 17.07

3.77

For treatments, the observed F = 5.56 > F.05,3,12 = 3.49, the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

14

11.29 H0: 1 = 2 = 3

Ha: At least one treatment mean is different from the others

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment 2

Blocks

3

Error

6

.001717 .000858

.076867 .025622

.003483 .000581

Total

.082067

= .01

11

F

1.48

44.10

For treatments, the observed F = 1.48 < F.01,2,6 = 10.92 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

11.30 Source

df

SS

MS

495.506

353.387

259.142

Treatment

Blocks

Error

5

9

45

2477.53

3180.48

11661.38

1.91

1.36

Total

59

17319.39

= .05

For treatments, the observed F = 1.91 < F.05,5,45 = 2.45 and decision is to fail to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.31 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

3

6

18

199.48

265.24

306.59

66.493

44.207

17.033

3.90

2.60

Total

27

771.31

= .01

For treatments, the observed F = 3.90 < F.01,3,18 = 5.09 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

11.32 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

3

9

27

2302.5

5402.5

1322.5

767.5

600.3

49.0

15.66

12.25

Total

39

9027.5

= .05

15

For treatments, the observed F = 15.66 > F.05,3,27 = 2.96 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.33 Source

Treatment

Blocks

Error

df

SS

MS

2

4

8

64.53

137.60

16.80

32.27 15.37

34.40 16.38

2.10

Total

14

218.93

= .01

For treatments, the observed F = 15.37 > F.01,2,8 = 8.65 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.34 This a randomized block design with 3 treatments (machines) and 5 block levels

(operators). The F for treatments is 6.72 with a p-value of .019. There is a

significant difference in machines at = .05. The F for blocking effects is 0.22

with a p-value of .807. There are no significant blocking effects. The blocking

effects reduced the power of the treatment effects since the blocking effects were

not significant.

16

11.35 The p value for columns, .000177, indicates that there is an overall significant

difference in treatment means at alpha .001. The lengths of calls differ according

to type of telephone used. The p value for rows, .000281, indicates that there is

an overall difference in block means at alpha .001. The lengths of calls differ

according to manager. While the output does not include multiple comparisons,

an examination of the column means reveals that calls were longest on cordless

phones (a sample average of 4.112 minutes) and shortest on computer phones (a

sample average of 2.522 minutes). Manager 5 posted the largest average call

length in the sample with an average of 4.34 minutes. Manager 3 had the shortest

average call length in the sample with an average of 2.275.

If the company wants to reduce the average phone call length, it would encourage

managers to use the computer for calls. However, this study might be

underscoring the fact that it is inconvenient to place calls using the computer. If

management wants to encourage more calling, they might make more cordless

phones available or inquiry as to why the other modes are used for shorter

lengths.

11.36 This is a two-way factorial design with two independent variables and one

dependent variable. It is 2x4 in that there are two row treatment levels and four

column treatment levels. Since there are three measurements per cell, interaction

can be analyzed.

dfrow treatment = 1

dferror = 16

dfcolumn treatment = 3

dfinteraction = 3,

dftotal = 23

11.37 This is a two-way factorial design with two independent variables and one

dependent variable. It is 4x3 in that there are four treatment levels and three

column treatment levels. Since there are two measurements per cell, interaction

can be analyzed.

dfrow treatment = 3

dferror = 12

dfcolumn treatment = 2

dftotal = 23

dfinteraction = 6,

11.38 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

3

4

12

60

126.98

37.49

380.82

733.65

42.327

9.373

31.735

12.228

3.46

0.77

2.60

Total

79

1278.94

= .05

17

For rows, the observed F = 3.46 > F.05,3,60 = 2.76 and the decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,4,60 = 2.53 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 0.77 < F.05,4,60 = 2.53 and the decision is to fail

to reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,12,60 = 1.92 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 2.60 > F.05,12,60 = 1.92 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

Since there is significant interaction, the researcher should exercise extreme

caution in analyzing the "significant" row effects.

11.39 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

1

3

3

16

1.047

3.844

0.773

6.968

1.047

1.281

0.258

0.436

2.40

2.94

0.59

Total

23

12.632

= .05

For rows, the observed F = 2.40 < F.05,1,16 = 4.49 and decision is to fail to reject

the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,3,16 = 3.24 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 2.94 < F.05,3,16 = 3.24 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

18

For interaction, the observed F = 0.59 < F.05,3,16 = 3.24 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

11.40 Source

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

df

SS

MS

60.750

7.000

1.000

1.583

1

2

2

6

60.750

14.000

2.000

9.500

38.37

4.42

0.63

Total

11

86.250

= .01

For rows, the observed F = 38.37 > F.01,1,6 = 13.75 and the decision is to reject

the null hypothesis.

Critical F.01,2,6 = 10.92 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 4.42 < F.01,2,6 = 10.92 and the decision is to fail to

reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.01,2,6 = 10.92 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 0.63 < F.01,2,6 = 10.92 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

11.41 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

3

1

3

24

5.09844

1.24031

0.12094

0.46750

1.69948

1.24031

0.04031

0.01948

87.25

63.67

2.07

Total

31

6.92719

= .05

For rows, the observed F = 87.25 > F.05,3,24 = 3.01 and the decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

19

For columns, the observed F = 63.67 > F.05,1,24 = 4.26 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,3,24 = 3.01 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 2.07 < F.05,3,24 = 3.01 and the decision is to fail

to reject the null hypothesis.

11.42 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

3

2

6

12

42.4583

49.0833

4.9167

11.5000

14.1528

24.5417

0.8194

0.9583

14.77

25.61

0.86

Total

23

107.9583

= .05

For rows, the observed F = 14.77 > F.05,3,12 = 3.49 and the decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,2,12 = 3.89 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 25.61 > F.05,2,12 = 3.89 and the decision is to reject

the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,6,12 = 3.00 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 0.86 < F.05,6,12 = 3.00 and fail to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.43 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

2

3

6

24

1736.22

1078.33

503.33

607.33

Total

35

3925.22

= .05

868.11

359.44

83.89

25.31

20

F

34.31

14.20

3.32

For rows, the observed F = 34.31 > F.05,2,24 = 3.40 and the decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,3,24 = 3.01 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 14.20 > F.05,3,24 = 3.01 and decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,6,24 = 2.51 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 3.32 > F.05,6,24 = 2.51 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.44 This two-way design has 3 row treatments and 5 column treatments. There are 45

total observations with 3 in each cell.

FR =

MS R 46.16

= 13.23

=

MS E

3.49

p-value = .000 and the decision is to reject the null hypothesis for rows.

FC =

MSC 249.70

= 71.57

=

MS E

3.49

p-value = .000 and the decision is to reject the null hypothesis for columns.

MS I 55.27

FI =

= 15.84

=

MS E

3.49

p-value = .000 and the decision is to reject the null hypothesis for interaction.

Because there is significant interaction, the analysis of main effects is

confounded. The graph of means displays the crossing patterns of the line

segments indicating the presence of interaction.

21

11.45 The null hypotheses are that there are no interaction effects, that there are no

significant differences in the means of the valve openings by machine, and that

there are no significant differences in the means of the valve openings by shift.

Since the p-value for interaction effects is .876, there are no significant interaction

effects which is good since significant interaction effects would confound that

study. The p-value for columns (shifts) is .008 indicating that column effects are

significant at alpha of .01. There is a significant difference in the mean valve

opening according to shift. No multiple comparisons are given in the output.

However, an examination of the shift means indicates that the mean valve

opening on shift one was the largest at 6.47 followed by shift three with 6.3 and

shift two with 6.25. The p-value for rows (machines) was .937 which is not

significant.

11.46 This two-way factorial design has 3 rows and 3 columns with three observations

per cell. The observed F value for rows is 0.19, for columns is 1.19, and for

interaction is 1.40. Using an alpha of .05, the critical F value for rows and

columns (same df) is F2,18,.05 = 3.55. Neither the observed F value for rows nor

the observed F value for columns is significant. The critical F value for

interaction is F4,18,.05 = 2.93. There is no significant interaction.

11.47 Source

df

SS

MS

F

Treatment

3

66.69

22.23 8.82

Error

12

30.25

2.52

Total

15

96.94

= .05

Critical F.05,3,12 = 3.49

Since the treatment F = 8.82 > F.05,3,12 = 3.49, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

For Tukey's HSD:

MSE = 2.52

n=4

N = 16

N - k = 12

k=4

q.05,4,12 = 4.20

HSD = q

x 1 = 12

MSE

2.52

= 3.33

= (4.20)

n

4

x 2 = 7.75

x 3 = 13.25

x 4 = 11.25

means 1 and 2, means 2 and 3, and means 2 and 4.

11.48 Source

df

SS

Treatment

Error

6

19

68.19

249.61

Total

25

317.80

11.49 Source

MS

11.365

13.137

0.87

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

5

36

210

655

42.000

18.194

2.31

Total

41

865

SS

MS

75.46

4.66

11.50 Source

df

Treatment

Error

2

22

150.91

102.53

Total

24

253.44

= .01

22

16.19

Since the observed F = 16.19 > F.01,2,22 = 5.72, the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

x 1 = 9.200

n1 = 10

MSE = 4.66

= .01

x 2 = 14.250

x 3 = 8.714

n2 = 8

n3 = 7

C=3

N = 25

N - C = 22

q.01,3,22 = 4.64

HSD1,2 = 4.64

4.66 1 1

+ = 3.36

2 10 8

HSD1,3 = 4.64

4.66 1 1

+ = 3.49

2 10 7

HSD2,3 = 4.64

4.66 1 1

+ = 3.14

2 8 7

x 1 x 2 = 5.05 and

23

11.51 This design is a repeated-measures type random block design. There is one

treatment variable with three levels. There is one blocking variable with six

people in it (six levels). The degrees of freedom treatment are two. The degrees

of freedom block are five. The error degrees of freedom are ten. The total

degrees of freedom are seventeen. There is one dependent variable.

11.52 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

3

9

27

20,994

16,453

33,891

Total

39

71,338

= .05

6998.00 5.58

1828.11 1.46

1255.22

Since the calculated F = 5.58 > F.05,3,27 = 2.96 for treatments, the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.53 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

3

5

15

240.12

548.71

38.12

80.04

109.74

2.54

31.51

43.20

Total

23

= .05

Since for treatments the calculated F = 31.51 > F.05,3,5 = 5.41, the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

For Tukey's HSD:

Ignoring the blocking effects, the sum of squares blocking and sum of squares

error are combined together for a new SSerror = 548.71 + 38.12 = 586.83.

Combining the degrees of freedom error and blocking yields a new dferror = 20.

Using these new figures, we compute a new mean square error, MSE =

(586.83/20) = 29.3415.

n=6

C=4

N = 24

N - C = 20

24

q.05,4,20 = 3.96

HSD = q

MSE

= (3.96)

n

x 1 = 16.667

29.3415

= 8.757

6

x 2 = 12.333

x 3 = 12.333

x 4 = 19.833

None of the pairs of means are significantly different using Tukey's HSD = 8.757.

This may be due in part to the fact that we compared means by folding the

blocking effects back into error. However, the blocking effects were highly

significant.

11.54 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment 1

Treatment 2

Interaction

Error

4

1

4

30

29.13

7.2825 1.98

12.67 12.6700 3.45

73.49 18.3725 5.00

110.30

3.6767

Total

39

225.59

= .05

For treatment 1, the observed F = 1.98 < F.05,4,30 = 2.69 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,1,30 = 4.17 for treatment 2

For treatment 2 observed F = 3.45 < F.05,1,30 = 4.17 and the decision is to

fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,4,30 = 2.69 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 5.00 > F.05,4,30 = 2.69 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

Since there are significant interaction effects, examination of the main effects

should not be done in the usual manner. However, in this case, there are no

significant treatment effects anyway.

11.55 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

3

2

6

24

257.889

1.056

17.611

54.000

Total

35

330.556

= .01

85.963

0.528

2.935

2.250

25

F

38.21

0.23

1.30

For the row effects, the observed F = 38.21 > F.01,3,24 = 4.72 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.01,2,24 = 5.61 for columns

For the column effects, the observed F = 0.23 < F.01,2,24 = 5.61 and the decision is

to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.01,6,24 = 3.67 for interaction

For the interaction effects, the observed F = 1.30 < F.01,6,24 = 3.67 and the decision

is to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

11.56 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

2

3

6

24

49.3889

1.2222

1.2778

15.3333

Total

35

67.2222

= .05

24.6944 38.65

0.4074 0.64

0.2130 0.33

0.6389

For the row effects, the observed F = 38.65 > F.05,2,24 = 3.40 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,3,24 = 3.01 for columns

For the column effects, the observed F = 0.64 < F.05,3,24 = 3.01 and the decision is

to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

26

For interaction effects, the observed F = 0.33 < F.05,6,24 = 2.51 and the decision is

to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

There are no significant interaction effects. Only the row effects are significant.

Computing Tukey's HSD for rows:

x 1 = 2.667

x 2 = 4.917

n = 12

N = 36 N - k = 33

k=3

x 3 = 2.250

squares and degrees of freedom with previous error terms:

MSE = (1.2222 + 1.2778 + 15.3333)/(3 + 6 + 24) = 0.5404

q.05,3,33 = 3.49

HSD = q

MSE

= (3.49)

n

.5404

= 0.7406

12

Using HSD, there are significant pairwise differences between means 1 and 2 and

between means 2 and 3.

Shown below is a graph of the interaction using the cell means by row.

11.57 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

3

20

90.48

81.76

30.16

4.09

7.38

Total

23

172.24

= .05

27

The treatment F = 7.38 > F.05,3,20 = 3.10 and the decision is to reject the null

hypothesis.

11.58

Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

2

5

10

460,353

33,524

22,197

Total

17

516,074

= .01

230,176 103.70

6,705

3.02

2,220

Since the treatment observed F = 103.70 > F.05,2,10 = 4.10, the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

11.59 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Error

2

18

9.4

185.4

4.7

10.3

0.46

Total

20

194.8

= .05

Since the treatment F = 0.46 > F.05,2,18 = 3.55, the decision is to fail to reject the

null hypothesis.

Since there are no significant treatment effects, it would make no sense to

compute Tukey-Kramer values and do pairwise comparisons.

11.60 Source

df

SS

MS

Row

Column

Interaction

Error

2

3

6

36

4.875

17.083

2.292

17.000

2.437

5.694

0.382

0.472

5.16

12.06

0.81

Total

47

41.250

= .05

28

For rows, the observed F = 5.16 > F.05,2,36 = 3.32 and the decision is to reject the

null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,3,36 = 2.92 for columns

For columns, the observed F = 12.06 > F.05,3,36 = 2.92 and the decision is to reject

the null hypothesis.

Critical F.05,6,36 = 2.42 for interaction

For interaction, the observed F = 0.81 < F.05,6,36 = 2.42 and the decision is to fail

to reject the null hypothesis.

There are no significant interaction effects. There are significant row and column

effects at = .05.

11.61 Source

df

SS

MS

Treatment

Blocks

Error

4

7

28

53.400

17.100

27.400

13.350

2.443

0.979

13.64

2.50

Total

39

97.900

= .05

For treatments, the observed F = 13.64 > F.05,4,28 = 2.71 and the decision is to

reject the null hypothesis.

29

11.62 This is a one-way ANOVA with four treatment levels. There are 36 observations

in the study. An examination of the mean analysis shows that the sample sizes are

different with sizes of 8, 7, 11, and 10 respectively. The p-value of .045 indicates

that there is a significant overall difference in the means at = .05. No multiple

comparison technique was used here to conduct pairwise comparisons. However,

a study of sample means shows that the two most extreme means are from levels

one and four. These two means would be the most likely candidates for multiple

comparison tests.

11.63 Excel reports that this is a two-factor design without replication indicating that

this is a random block design. Neither the row nor the column p-values are less

than .05 indicating that there are no significant treatment or blocking effects in

this study. Also displayed in the output to underscore this conclusion are the

observed and critical F values for both treatments and blocking. In both

cases, the observed value is less than the critical value.

11.64 This is a two-way ANOVA with 5 rows and 2 columns. There are 2 observations

per cell. For rows, FR = 0.98 with a p-value of .461 which is not significant. For

columns, FC = 2.67 with a p-value of .134 which is not significant. For

interaction, FI = 4.65 with a p-value of .022 which is significant at = .05. Thus,

there are significant interaction and the row and column effects are confounded.

An examination of the interaction plot reveals that most of the lines cross

signifying verifying the significant interaction finding.

11.65 This is a two-way ANOVA with 4 rows and 3 columns. There are 3 observations

per cell. FR = 4.30 with a p-value of .014 is significant at = .05. The null

hypothesis is rejected for rows. FC = 0.53 with a p-value of .594 is not

significant. We fail to reject the null hypothesis for columns. FI = 0.99 with a

p-value of .453 is not significant. We fail to reject the null hypothesis for

interaction effects.

11.66 This was a random block design with 5 treatment levels and 5 blocking levels.

For both treatment and blocking effects, the critical value is F.05,4,16 = 3.01. The

observed F value for treatment effects is MSC / MSE = 35.98 / 7.36 = 4.89 which

is greater than the critical value. The null hypothesis for treatments is rejected,

and we conclude that there is a significant different in treatment means. No

multiple comparisons have been computed in the output. The observed F value

for blocking effects is MSR / MSE = 10.36 /7.36 = 1.41 which is less than the

critical value. There are no significant blocking effects. Using random block

design on this experiment might have cost a loss of power.

30

11.67 This one-way ANOVA has 4 treatment levels and 24 observations. The F = 3.51

yields a p-value of .034 indicating significance at = .05. Since the sample sizes

are equal, Tukeys HSD is used to make multiple comparisons. The computer

output shows that means 1 and 3 are the only pairs that are significantly different

(same signs in confidence interval). Observe on the graph that the confidence

intervals for means 1 and 3 barely overlap.

- ANOVA Full Factorial DesignUploaded byAchmadAgustianFareza
- StylebookQuizonStatisticalTerms AnswersUploaded byToga MarMar
- DO_s2012_083Uploaded byMark Angel Moreno
- Experiments MontgomeryUploaded byJaka Permana Soebagjo
- Perception Precedes ComputationUploaded byChaitali Talele
- Full TextUploaded byRaluca Roșca
- The Promising New Frontiers.docxUploaded byCharmie Lagdamen
- stat12t_1203.pptUploaded byPG Chong
- Chapter 6 BookUploaded byAndreNicoloGuloy
- SixSigma GB+ModuleUploaded byrahil_sang
- Lala BertUploaded byval
- cleaver goldenrod gall reportUploaded byapi-437221956
- BSE 10 Market Capitalization folows Sentiment of Investors or Technical Methods- An analytical studyUploaded byAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- Chapter 10, CBSUploaded byHim
- handout2_glmUploaded byGerardo Di Pino
- Minitab SamplesUploaded byJitendra Ramteke
- s12155-008-9018-6] Ezhumalai Sasikumar; Thangavelu Viruthagiri -- Optimization of Process Conditions Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM)Uploaded byfibrillian
- Descriptive StatisticsUploaded byHayali Biradam
- The Value of Gold vs Stock MarketUploaded byTim Kuehne
- asadianUploaded byAbas
- Practice_Midterm.docxUploaded byjl123123
- Lecture 2Uploaded byJoey Ramirez
- Using ExcelUploaded byelcidv091
- ExamW08.pdfUploaded byJamie Samuel
- ES10rexUploaded byBilal Hassan
- 20120926-02 SabaghniaUploaded byApoorva Arora
- skittles word project 4-29 finalUploaded byapi-212184301
- 2009_vol8_no2.pdfUploaded byAgung Priyo Rizki
- PLANT BREEDING TOOLS- SOFTWARE FOR PLANT BREEDERS.pdfUploaded bysumeetmankar171
- Adoption of Banking TechnologyUploaded byCharu Modi

- ch03Uploaded byMukesh Maru
- 12chkenblacksolution-130815163202-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byengr
- 12chkenblacksolution-130815163202-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byengr
- 12chkenblacksolution-130815163202-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byengr
- 12chkenblacksolution-130815163202-phpapp02.pdfUploaded byengr
- 06chkenblacksolution-130815162855-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 06chkenblacksolution-130815162855-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 11chkenblacksolution-130815163116-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 11chkenblacksolution-130815163116-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 10chkenblacksolution-130815163111-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 10chkenblacksolution-130815163111-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 10chkenblacksolution-130815163111-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- Mathematics FormulaUploaded byOliver Molitas
- 13chkenblacksolution-130815163206-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 13chkenblacksolution-130815163206-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 14chkenblacksolution-130815163230-phpapp02Uploaded byengr
- 16chkenblacksolution-130815163312-phpapp01Uploaded byengr
- 16chkenblacksolution-130815163312-phpapp01Uploaded byengr
- 17chkenblacksolution-130815163322-phpapp01Uploaded byengr
- 17chkenblacksolution-130815163322-phpapp01Uploaded byengr
- 07chkenblacksolution-130815163000-phpapp01Uploaded byVivekMandal
- 07chkenblacksolution-130815163000-phpapp01Uploaded byVivekMandal
- 11chkenblacksolution-130815163116-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 10chkenblacksolution-130815163111-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 08chkenblacksolution-130815163026-phpapp02Uploaded byengr
- 08chkenblacksolution-130815163026-phpapp02Uploaded byengr
- 14chkenblacksolution-130815163230-phpapp02Uploaded byengr
- 13chkenblacksolution-130815163206-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr
- 13chkenblacksolution-130815163206-phpapp01.pdfUploaded byengr

- Research and methodsUploaded byArun Soman
- A 5Uploaded byJoshua Cummings
- Livro de não inferioridadeUploaded byericaduran4824
- Just a homeworkUploaded byDiana Sanchez
- Grounded TheoryUploaded byabhaygaur
- Jurnal AkuUploaded bySinta
- ijcem0007-4607Uploaded bycleo
- skittles project part 3Uploaded byapi-340621508
- STAT 151-Lecture Assignment 1Uploaded byDiana Cretu
- Six sigma green beltUploaded byAntonio20091
- Chap 008Uploaded byVinay Teja
- critical appraisalUploaded bylowella
- BiostatUploaded bymysweetangel6162
- StatisticsUploaded bysalman672003
- 2.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Zulqarnain
- The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social Research Projects, 3rd EditionUploaded byAdha Montpelierina
- Lecture Notes in Practical Research 2 Part 1Uploaded byCharline A. Radislao
- 109300227-2964-CONSORT-2010-ChecklistUploaded bySri Wahyudi
- Writing up research - a statistical perspectiveUploaded byJack Chen
- Methods of Research Notes.pdfUploaded byآكوجوي
- Chapter 12 Review w SolsUploaded bycamillesyp
- RM Final Project ReportUploaded bysabujmukh
- AnovaUploaded bybio
- Chapter 1 -Research DesignUploaded byHai Nguyen
- Uji HomogenitasUploaded byDedi Landani Ginting
- Assignment(Research Methodology)Uploaded byapi-3708369
- Lecture 7 SamplingUploaded byBirat Sharma
- Research Aptitude NotesUploaded bysushantjoshi
- aud5Uploaded byPaul Quarmyne
- judul srikpsi+abstrak_lilikUploaded byiiipit