Type III again [🇷 for BE/BA]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2015-06-12 14:18 (3614 d 23:36 ago) – Posting: # 14949
Views: 14,353

Dear d_labes,

❝ So what can we suggest to Yung-jin w.r.t. the ANOVA?

❝ SAS way, Phoenix way, R's drop1() (which doesn't work for sequence) or what else?

  1. If the aim is to reproduce SAS then yes, we need to update the anova table with F= MS(Seq) / MS(Subj).
  2. The idea of testing MS(Seq) against the MS(Subj) is still just a postulate. One that of course makes people invest heart and sould in it, but still a postulate.
  3. Drop1 gives you type III SS, plain and simple with no questions asked. Type III is when the least term is left out and hence it can rightfully be claimed that by the shear defintion of type III the Seq effect has to be nil.
So, I am not so worried about drop1 scientifically. I am only worried about assessors who think that if it doesn't give the same result as SAS then it is wrong. Why don't those assessors instead ask why the sequence effect with type III is not nil with SAS. Much more relevant :-D

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
97 visitors (0 registered, 97 guests [including 9 identified bots]).
Forum time: 13:54 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

My doctor gave me six months to live,
but when I couldn’t pay the bill
he gave me six months more.    Walter Matthau

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