ANOVA of Model 1 [General Sta­tis­tics]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2024-10-03 17:33 (68 d 21:57 ago) – Posting: # 24212
Views: 1,481

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
23,336 posts in 4,902 threads, 1,666 registered users;
37 visitors (0 registered, 37 guests [including 10 identified bots]).
Forum time: 14:30 CET (Europe/Vienna)

I’m all in favor of the democratic principle
that one idiot is as good as one genius, but I draw the line
when someone takes the next step and concludes
that two idiots are better than one genius.    Leo Szilard

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