ANOVA of Model 1 [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2024-10-03 17:33 (280 d 04:31 ago) – Posting: # 24212
Views: 6,046

Hi BEQool,

❝ … what did you use as an error term (in the denominator) when testing group*treatment effect? MS Error (as for within-subject factors) or Subject(group×sequence) Error (as for between-subject factors)?


Here is the ANOVA of the first simulated study of our Scenario 1:

Response: log(Y)
                       Df      Sum Sq      Mean Sq F value   Pr(>F) 
group                   1 0.171667589 0.1716675892 2.12908 0.151630 
sequence                1 0.339810342 0.3398103421 4.21444 0.046057 *
treatment               1 0.349206911 0.3492069106 4.33098 0.043277 *
group:period            2 0.224598347 0.1122991734 1.39277 0.259120 
group:sequence          1 0.053695040 0.0536950403 0.66594 0.418865 
group:treatment         1 0.252244911 0.2522449107 3.12843 0.083870 .
group:sequence:subject 44 5.173880238 0.1175881872 1.45837 0.107359 
Residuals              44 3.547717653 0.0806299467                   
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

And then …

p.GxT[sim] <- anova(model1)[["group:treatment", "Pr(>F)"]]

 … which is 0.083870. Did we screw up?

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
23,430 posts in 4,931 threads, 1,677 registered users;
50 visitors (0 registered, 50 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 22:04 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

To know that we know what we know,
and to know that we do not know what we do not know,
that is true knowledge.    Nicolaus Copernicus

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