So you made a baseline correction and now the team discusses ANCOVA [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by ElMaestro  – Denmark, 2018-02-15 22:30 (2292 d 22:34 ago) – Posting: # 18425
Views: 4,565

Hi Relaxation,

I read your post so many times now and I am somewhat confused.
What were you actually trying to prove or disprove?

Inclusion of a covariate one way or another makes an implicit assumption of a relationship that can be said to be linear between the covariate and the response (in the presence of the factors).

If the variance goes full Tasmanian devil on you when you include the covariate then perhaps this assumption is...well... of a nature that has the potential to cause some degree of debate. And then that is where the problem truly is.

In contrast to classical anovas where an additional factor will always decrease the unexplianed variance (or leave it unchanged, academically), the inclusion of a covariate is not necessarily having this effect.

Help me, please, I really wish to understand what this is all about.

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,035 posts in 4,835 threads, 1,644 registered users;
59 visitors (0 registered, 59 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

That which is static and repetitive is boring.
That which is dynamic and random is confusing.
In between lies art.    John Locke

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