* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ANOVA
Survey
Document related concepts
Transcript
ANOVA Independent ANOVA • Scores vary – why? • Total variability can be divided up into 2 parts • 1) Between treatments • 2) Within treatments Between design Total variability Between treatments Treatment effect Individual differences Experimental error Within treatments Individual differences Experimental error • F = variance between treatments variance within F = treatment + indiv diffs + error indiv diffs + error INDEPENDENT ANOVA assumptions 1) the observations within each sample must be independent 2) the populations from which the samples were selected must be normal 3) the populations from which the samples are selected must have equal variances (homogeneity of variance) Same assumptions for t test • F measures variance which is standard deviation squared • F = (differences between sample)2 (differences expected by chance)2 F = t2 Figure 1 Mean calories in hotdogs Between-Subjects Factors N hotdog Beef Meat Poultry 20 17 17 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: calories hotdog Beef Meat Poultry Total Mean 156.8500 158.7059 118.7647 145.4444 Std. Deviation 22.64201 25.23580 22.55141 29.38339 N 20 17 17 54 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: calories Type III Sum Source of Squares Corrected Model 17692.195 a Intercept 1125187.490 hotdog 17692.195 Error 28067.138 Total 1188080.000 Corrected Total 45759.333 df 2 1 2 51 54 53 Mean Square 8846.098 1125187.490 8846.098 550.336 a. R Squared = .387 (Adjusted R Squared = .363) F 16.074 2044.546 16.074 Sig. .000 .000 .000 Post hoc test Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: calories LSD (I) hotdog Beef Meat Poultry (J) hotdog Meat Poultry Beef Poultry Beef Meat Mean Difference (I-J) -1.8559 38.0853* 1.8559 39.9412* -38.0853* -39.9412* Std. Error 7.73883 7.73883 7.73883 8.04645 7.73883 8.04645 Bas ed on observed means . *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. Sig. .811 .000 .811 .000 .000 .000 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -17.3922 13.6805 22.5489 53.6216 -13.6805 17.3922 23.7872 56.0951 -53.6216 -22.5489 -56.0951 -23.7872 • Information about the purpose of the experiment. • The number of participants. • Descriptive Statistics (effect size –more later) • Analysis result • Post hoc differences The difference in calories between beef, (n=20), meat (n=17) and poultry (n=17) hotdogs was tested. Mean calorie level was determined for each hotdog type, beef 156.85 (22.64), meat 158.71 (25.24) and poultry 118.76 (22.55). Confidence intervals for the means in each group are shown in figure 1.The calorie level varied between the hotdog types F(2,51) = 16.07, p<.05. MS = 8846. Post hoc test show poultry had fewer calories than both meat (LSD =-38 p<.05) and beef (LSD= -39.9 p<.05). APA To examine the effects of memory training on retention of words, 20 college students were randomly assigned to four training conditions (n=5) defined by the instructions to participants: story method, imagery method thyme method, and control (no specific instructions). Mean recall out of a possible 20 words (and the sample standard deviation) were for each of the conditions: story 13.2(1.3), imagery 14.4 (1.8), rhyme 13.4 (1.3) and control 10.0 (1.6). Confidence intervals for the means in each group are shown in figure 1. Mean recall differed significantly among the four instruction conditions, F(3,16) = 7.8, p<.05. MS = … Post hoc test show…. Repeated Measures ANOVA Total variability Between treatment variability Treatment effect Experimental error Between subject variability Individual differences Within treatment variability Individual differences Experimental error Error variability Experimental error F= treatment effect + experimental error experimental error Figure 1 Mean Anxiety by Trial Number Mauchly's Test of Sphericityb Meas ure: MEASURE_1 a Eps ilon Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W trial .398 Approx. Chi-Square 8.957 df 5 Sig. .112 Greenhous e-Geiss er .622 Huynh-Feldt .744 Lower-bound .333 Tes ts the null hypothes is that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix. a. May be us ed to adjus t the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tes ts are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table. b. Des ign: Intercept Within Subjects Design: trial Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Meas ure: MEASURE_1 Source trial Error(trial) Sphericity As s umed Greenhouse-Geiss er Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Sphericity As s umed Greenhouse-Geiss er Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound F(3,33) = 127.56 Type III Sum of Squares 991.500 991.500 991.500 991.500 85.500 85.500 85.500 85.500 df 3 1.865 2.231 1.000 33 20.512 24.536 11.000 Mean Square 330.500 531.709 444.504 991.500 2.591 4.168 3.485 7.773 F 127.561 127.561 127.561 127.561 Sig. .000 .000 .000 .000 assumptions