S×F vari­­ance: Followup [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by jag009  – NJ, 2015-01-08 23:42 (3836 d 19:13 ago) – Posting: # 14263
Views: 42,777

Hi Angus,

Finally had some time to do this quickly. I apologize as I made a typo in my SAS code for the 95% UCB computation. My results are similar to yours


Par dfd    Var(σ2)        Cinv
WT   69  0.116539674     89.39120787
WR   71  0.199313551     91.67023918
WI   67  0.165897781     49.16227018


So, the only differences between our results are with WT. My dfd is 69 while yours is 67, and the slight difference in Var(σ2). If you count the number of subjects who has both T1 & T2 data, there are 69. I think the number of subjects used in the computation for test is the culprit (in Phoenix). For R, there are 71 subjects who completed both R1 and R2.

For me, σ2D = 0.0079711687

Using the above,

2D = ΣEQ + (ΣU)1/2 = 0.073582621

I haven't done this exercise in Phoenix though so I don't know how it didn't end up with n=69 for Test at your end.

Thanks
John

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,433 posts in 4,931 threads, 1,672 registered users;
49 visitors (0 registered, 49 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 19:56 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

It has yet to be proven
that intelligence has any survival value.    Arthur C. Clarke

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5