One Way Anova Type 1 Error
Contents |
based on some independent variable. Again, each individual will be assigned to one group only. This independent variable is sometimes called an attribute independent variable because you are splitting the group based on some when to use anova vs t test attribute that they possess (e.g., their level of education; every individual has a level of advantage of anova over t-test education, even if it is "none"). Each group is then measured on the same dependent variable having undergone the same task or condition anova or t-test for two groups (or none at all). For example, a researcher is interested in determining whether there are differences in leg strength between amateur, semi-professional and professional rugby players. The force/strength measured on an isokinetic machine is the dependent variable. This anova vs t test for two sample type of study design is illustrated schematically in the Figure below: Why not compare groups with multiple t-tests? Every time you conduct a t-test there is a chance that you will make a Type I error. This error is usually 5%. By running two t-tests on the same data you will have increased your chance of "making a mistake" to 10%. The formula for determining the new error rate for multiple t-tests is not as
Multiple T Tests
simple as multiplying 5% by the number of tests. However, if you are only making a few multiple comparisons, the results are very similar if you do. As such, three t-tests would be 15% (actually, 14.3%) and so on. These are unacceptable errors. An ANOVA controls for these errors so that the Type I error remains at 5% and you can be more confident that any statistically significant result you find is not just running lots of tests. See our guide on hypothesis testing for more information on Type I errors. Join the 10,000s of students, academics and professionals who rely on Laerd Statistics. TAKE THE TOUR PLANS & PRICING What assumptions does the test make? There are three main assumptions, listed here: The dependent variable is normally distributed in each group that is being compared in the one-way ANOVA (technically, it is the residuals that need to be normally distributed, but the results will be the same). So, for example, if we were comparing three groups (e.g., amateur, semi-professional and professional rugby players) on their leg strength, their leg strength values (dependent variable) would have to be normally distributed for the amateur group of players, normally distributed for the semi-professionals and normally distributed for the professional players. You can test for normality in SPSS Statistics (see our guide here). There is homogeneity of varianc
on March 2, 2011 by nzcoops Not my post, just bookmarking this. It's from http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~fscholer/anova.php ANOVA (and R) The ANOVA Controversy ANOVA is a statistical process for analysing the amount
Similarities Between T Test And Anova
of variance that is contributed to a sample by different factors. It one way anova vs t test was initially derived by R. A. Fisher in 1925, for the case of balanced data (equal numbers of anova test example observations for each level of a factor). When data is unbalanced, there are different ways to calculate the sums of squares for ANOVA. There are at least 3 approaches, commonly https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/one-way-anova-statistical-guide-2.php called Type I, II and III sums of squares (this notation seems to have been introduced into the statistics world from the SAS package but is now widespread). Which type to use has led to an ongoing controversy in the field of statistics (for an overview, see Heer [2]). However, it essentially comes down to testing different hypotheses about the data. https://mcfromnz.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/anova-type-iiiiii-ss-explained/ Type I, II and III Sums of Squares Consider a model that includes two factors A and B; there are therefore two main effects, and an interaction, AB. The full model is represented by SS(A, B, AB). Other models are represented similarly: SS(A, B) indicates the model with no interaction, SS(B, AB) indicates the model that does not account for effects from factor A, and so on. The influence of particular factors (including interactions) can be tested by examining the differences between models. For example, to determine the presence of an interaction effect, an F-test of the models SS(A, B, AB) and the no-interaction model SS(A, B) would be carried out. It is convenient to define incremental sums of squares to represent these differences. Let SS(AB | A, B) = SS(A, B, AB) - SS(A, B) SS(A | B, AB) = SS(A, B, AB) - SS(B, AB) SS(B | A, AB) = SS(A, B, AB) - SS(A, AB) SS(A | B) = SS(A, B) - SS(B) SS(B | A) = SS(A, B) - SS(A) The notation shows the incremental diff
compare all possible pairs with ttests. Instead, you follow a two-stage process: Are all the means equal? A computation called ANOVA (analysis of variance) answers this question. If ANOVA shows that the means aren't all equal, then which means are unequal, and by how much? There are many ways to answer this question http://brownmath.com/stat/anova1.htm (and they give different answers), but we'll use a process called Tukey's HSD (Honestly Significant Difference). https://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/anovadescribe.htm Contents: Terminology Example 1: Fat for Frying Donuts Step 1: ANOVA Test for Equality of All Means Requirements for ANOVA Perform a 1-Way ANOVA Test Step 2: Tukey HSD for Post-Hoc Analysis Estimating Differences of Means Other Comparisons Example 2: Stock Market Example 3: CRT Lifetimes Appendix (The Hard Stuff) Why Not Just Pick Two Means and Do a t Test? How ANOVA Works t test Estimating Individual Treatment Means η²: Strength of Association References What's New Terminology The factor that varies between samples is called the factor. (Every once in a while things are easy.) The r different values or levels of the factor are called the treatments. Here the factor is the choice of fat and the treatments are the four fats, so r=4. The computations to test the means for equality are called a 1-way ANOVA or 1-factor ANOVA. Example 1: Fat for anova vs t Frying Donuts g Fat Absorbed in Batchx̅s Fat 16472687756957213.34 Fat 2789197828577857.77 Fat 3759378716376769.88 Fat 4556649647068628.22 source: Snedecor 1989 [full citation in "References", below] pp 217-218 Hoping to produce a donut that could be marketed to health-conscious consumers, a company tried four different fats to see which one was least absorbed by the donuts during the deep frying process. Each fat was used for six batches of two dozen donuts each, and the table shows the grams of fat absorbed by each batch of donuts. It looks like donuts absorb the most of Fat2 and the least of Fat4, with intermediate amounts of Fat1 and Fat3. But there's a lot of overlap, too: for instance, even though the mean for Fat2 is much higher than for Fat1, one sample of Fat1, 95g, is higher than five of the six samples of Fat 2. Nevertheless, the sample means do look different. But what about the population means? In other words, would the four fats be absorbed in different if you made a whole lot of batches of donuts-- do statistics justify choosing one fat over another? This is the basic question of a hypothesis test or significance test: is the difference great enough that you can rule out chance? If Fats 2 and 4 were the only ones you had data for, you'd do a good old 2-sample ttest. So why can't you do that anyway? because that would greatly
number of groups (levels). For example, an experimenter hypothesizes that learning in groups of three will be more effective than learning in pairs or individually. Students are randomly assigned to three groups and all students study a section of text. Those in group one study the text individually (control group), those in group two study in groups of two and those in group three study in groups of three. After studying for some set period of time all students complete a test over the materials they studied. First, note that this is a between-subjects design since there are different subjects in each experimental condition. Second, notice that ,instead of two groups (i.e., levels) of the independent variable, we now have three. The t-test, which is often used in similar experiments with two group, is only appropriate for situations where there are only two levels of one independent variable. When there is a categorical independent variable and a continuous dependent variable and there are more than two levels of the independent variable and/or there is more than one independent variable (a case that would require a multi-way, as opposed to one way ANOVA), then the appropriate analysis is the work horse of experimental psychology research, the analysis of variance. In the case where there are more than two levels of the independent variable the analysis goes through two steps. First, we carry out an over-all F test to determine if there is any significant difference existing among any of the means. If this F score is statistically significant, then we carry out a second step in which we compare sets of two means at a time in order to determine specifically, where the significance difference lies. Let's say that we have run the experiment on group learning and we recognize that this is an experiment for which the appropriate analysis is the between-subjects one-way analysis of variance. We use a statistical program and analyze the data with group as the independent variable and test score as the dependent variable. Our results might look something li