S×F vari­­ance: 3rd opinion [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2015-01-13 02:25 (3390 d 05:49 ago) – Posting: # 14273
Views: 39,603

Hi Angus & John,

seems that you guys have some fun!

@Angus: I get the same complete 71 subjects (69 df) for T, 73 (71 df) for R, and 69 (67 df) as John reported in this post. From that I get exactly the variances he reported in SAS. The only difference is the Cinv for 67 df. I would get 49.16227 for p 0.05 instead of 0.95. Maybe I got sumfink wrong?
          dfd  Var_wt       Cinv
dlat(T)    69  0.116539674  89.39120787
dlat(R)    71  0.199313551  91.67023918
ilat(T–R)  67  0.165897781  87.10807220


Can you check your code a fourth time, please? When you copied the R-workflow and modified it for T, please check whether the fixed effect in intermediate dlat is indeed Sequence (and not empty!). Sometimes PHX “forgets” the model specification during copy/pasting.

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,657 registered users;
107 visitors (0 registered, 107 guests [including 3 identified bots]).
Forum time: 09:15 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

Never never never never use Excel.
Not even for calculation of arithmetic means.    Martin Wolfsegger

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