This is a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with a single factor treatment arrangement (2 levels) which are fixed.

Similar documents
Chapter 8 (More on Assumptions for the Simple Linear Regression)

Odor attraction CRD Page 1

dm'log;clear;output;clear'; options ps=512 ls=99 nocenter nodate nonumber nolabel FORMCHAR=" = -/\<>*"; ODS LISTING;

This is a Split-plot Design with a fixed single factor treatment arrangement in the main plot and a 2 by 3 factorial subplot.

Descriptions of post-hoc tests

unadjusted model for baseline cholesterol 22:31 Monday, April 19,

Chapter 11 : State SAT scores for 1982 Data Listing

5.3 Three-Stage Nested Design Example

EXST7015: Estimating tree weights from other morphometric variables Raw data print

Handout 1: Predicting GPA from SAT

1) Answer the following questions as true (T) or false (F) by circling the appropriate letter.

The program for the following sections follows.

Comparison of a Population Means

Lecture 3. Experiments with a Single Factor: ANOVA Montgomery 3.1 through 3.3

Lecture 3. Experiments with a Single Factor: ANOVA Montgomery 3-1 through 3-3

Covariance Structure Approach to Within-Cases

COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN EXAMINATION, PAPER III FRIDAY AUGUST 26, 2005, 9:00 A.M. 1:00 P.M. STATISTICS 174 QUESTION

SAS Commands. General Plan. Output. Construct scatterplot / interaction plot. Run full model

Topic 17 - Single Factor Analysis of Variance. Outline. One-way ANOVA. The Data / Notation. One way ANOVA Cell means model Factor effects model

EXST 7015 Fall 2014 Lab 11: Randomized Block Design and Nested Design

Lecture 10: Experiments with Random Effects

SAS Procedures Inference about the Line ffl model statement in proc reg has many options ffl To construct confidence intervals use alpha=, clm, cli, c

EXST Regression Techniques Page 1. We can also test the hypothesis H :" œ 0 versus H :"

Topic 25 - One-Way Random Effects Models. Outline. Random Effects vs Fixed Effects. Data for One-way Random Effects Model. One-way Random effects

WITHIN-PARTICIPANT EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

T-test: means of Spock's judge versus all other judges 1 12:10 Wednesday, January 5, judge1 N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum

STAT 5200 Handout #23. Repeated Measures Example (Ch. 16)

Subject-specific observed profiles of log(fev1) vs age First 50 subjects in Six Cities Study

Biological Applications of ANOVA - Examples and Readings

Lecture 4. Random Effects in Completely Randomized Design

Booklet of Code and Output for STAC32 Final Exam

17. Example SAS Commands for Analysis of a Classic Split-Plot Experiment 17. 1

ANOVA Longitudinal Models for the Practice Effects Data: via GLM

Single Factor Experiments

Outline. Topic 19 - Inference. The Cell Means Model. Estimates. Inference for Means Differences in cell means Contrasts. STAT Fall 2013

Week 7.1--IES 612-STA STA doc

Repeated Measures Part 2: Cartoon data

Answer Keys to Homework#10

Assignment 9 Answer Keys

Analysis of Longitudinal Data: Comparison Between PROC GLM and PROC MIXED. Maribeth Johnson Medical College of Georgia Augusta, GA

4.8 Alternate Analysis as a Oneway ANOVA

Lecture notes on Regression & SAS example demonstration

Statistical Methods I

MIXED MODELS FOR REPEATED (LONGITUDINAL) DATA PART 2 DAVID C. HOWELL 4/1/2010

Topic 32: Two-Way Mixed Effects Model

Chapter 11. Analysis of Variance (One-Way)

SAS Syntax and Output for Data Manipulation: CLDP 944 Example 3a page 1

STA 303H1F: Two-way Analysis of Variance Practice Problems

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF BALANCED DAIRY SCIENCE DATA USING SAS

Failure Time of System due to the Hot Electron Effect

Analysis of Covariance

Outline. Topic 20 - Diagnostics and Remedies. Residuals. Overview. Diagnostics Plots Residual checks Formal Tests. STAT Fall 2013

Introduction to Design and Analysis of Experiments with the SAS System (Stat 7010 Lecture Notes)

Statistics for exp. medical researchers Comparison of groups, T-tests and ANOVA

Topic 20: Single Factor Analysis of Variance

SAS Syntax and Output for Data Manipulation:

Answer to exercise: Blood pressure lowering drugs

ANALYSES OF NCGS DATA FOR ALCOHOL STATUS CATEGORIES 1 22:46 Sunday, March 2, 2003

Exst7037 Multivariate Analysis Cancorr interpretation Page 1

BE640 Intermediate Biostatistics 2. Regression and Correlation. Simple Linear Regression Software: SAS. Emergency Calls to the New York Auto Club

data proc sort proc corr run proc reg run proc glm run proc glm run proc glm run proc reg CONMAIN CONINT run proc reg DUMMAIN DUMINT run proc reg

Differences of Least Squares Means

Stat 412/512 TWO WAY ANOVA. Charlotte Wickham. stat512.cwick.co.nz. Feb

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO. Faculty of Arts and Science APRIL 2010 EXAMINATIONS STA 303 H1S / STA 1002 HS. Duration - 3 hours. Aids Allowed: Calculator

Analysis of variance and regression. April 17, Contents Comparison of several groups One-way ANOVA. Two-way ANOVA Interaction Model checking

Introduction to SAS proc mixed

PLS205!! Lab 9!! March 6, Topic 13: Covariance Analysis

Topic 23: Diagnostics and Remedies

Pairwise multiple comparisons are easy to compute using SAS Proc GLM. The basic statement is:

ssh tap sas913, sas

Introduction to SAS proc mixed

PLS205 Lab 2 January 15, Laboratory Topic 3

STAT 5200 Handout #26. Generalized Linear Mixed Models

Mixed Model: Split plot with two whole-plot factors, one split-plot factor, and CRD at the whole-plot level (e.g. fancier split-plot p.

Analysis of variance. April 16, Contents Comparison of several groups

Analysis of variance. April 16, 2009

Contrasting Marginal and Mixed Effects Models Recall: two approaches to handling dependence in Generalized Linear Models:

Random Intercept Models

Analysis of Variance

STOR 455 STATISTICAL METHODS I

Outline. Analysis of Variance. Comparison of 2 or more groups. Acknowledgements. Comparison of serveral groups

Lecture 5: Comparing Treatment Means Montgomery: Section 3-5

Variance component models part I

Math 475. Jimin Ding. August 29, Department of Mathematics Washington University in St. Louis jmding/math475/index.

Chapter 9. Multivariate and Within-cases Analysis. 9.1 Multivariate Analysis of Variance

Outline. Analysis of Variance. Acknowledgements. Comparison of 2 or more groups. Comparison of serveral groups

4.1 Computing section Example: Bivariate measurements on plants Post hoc analysis... 7

1 Tomato yield example.

Multi-Equation Structural Models: Seemingly Unrelated Regression Models

STATISTICS 479 Exam II (100 points)

Booklet of Code and Output for STAC32 Final Exam

Lecture 10: Factorial Designs with Random Factors

Incomplete Block Designs

3 Variables: Cyberloafing Conscientiousness Age

6 Single Sample Methods for a Location Parameter

General Linear Model (Chapter 4)

Mixed Model: Split plot with two whole-plot factors, one split-plot factor, and CRD at the whole-plot level (e.g. fancier split-plot p.

In many situations, there is a non-parametric test that corresponds to the standard test, as described below:

Topic 2. Chapter 3: Diagnostics and Remedial Measures

Overview. Prerequisites

Transcription:

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 1 Linear Models Y ij = µ + βi + τ j + βτij + εijk This is a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with a single factor treatment arrangement (2 levels) which are fixed. 1 ********************************************************; 2 *** Pygmalion effect study ***; 3 *** In this study three platoons were used from each ***; 4 *** of 10 companies of soldiers. In each company, ***; 5 *** one of the 3 platoons was selected as the ***; 6 *** treatment group with higher expectations. ***; 7 ********************************************************; 8 9 dm'log;clear;output;clear'; 10 options nodate nocenter nonumber ps=512 ls=99 nolabel; 11 ODS HTML style=minimal rs=none 11! body='c:\geaghan\current\exst3201\fall2005\sas\pygmalion01.html' ; NOTE: Writing HTML Body file: C:\Geaghan\Current\EXST3201\Fall2005\SAS\Pygmalion01.html 12 13 Title1 ''; 14 filename input1 'C:\Geaghan\Current\EXST3201\Datasets\ASCII\case1302.csv'; 15 16 data pygmalion; length treat $ 9; infile input1 missover DSD dlm="," firstobs=2; 17 input COMPANY $ TREAT $ SCORE; 18 label company = 'Company of soldiers' 19 treat = 'Pygmalion or control platoon' 20 score = 'Score on Practical Specialty Test'; 21 datalines; NOTE: The infile INPUT1 is: File Name=C:\Geaghan\Current\EXST3201\Datasets\ASCII\case1302.csv, RECFM=V,LRECL=256 NOTE: 29 records were read from the infile INPUT1. The minimum record length was 19. The maximum record length was 35. NOTE: The data set WORK.PYGMALION has 29 observations and 3 variables. NOTE: DATA statement used (Total process time): 0.04 seconds 0.05 seconds 22 run; 24 PROC PRINT DATA=pygmalion; TITLE2 'Data Listing'; RUN; NOTE: There were 29 observations read from the data set WORK.PYGMALION. NOTE: The PROCEDURE PRINT printed page 1. NOTE: PROCEDURE PRINT used (Total process time): 0.35 seconds 0.03 seconds Data Listing Obs treat COMPANY SCORE 1 PYGMALION C1 80.0000 2 CONTROL C1 63.2000 3 CONTROL C1 69.2000 4 PYGMALION C2 83.9000 5 CONTROL C2 63.1000 6 CONTROL C2 81.5000 7 PYGMALION C3 68.2000 8 CONTROL C3 76.2000 9 PYGMALION C4 76.5000 10 CONTROL C4 59.5000 11 CONTROL C4 73.5000 12 PYGMALION C5 87.8000 13 CONTROL C5 73.9000 14 CONTROL C5 78.5000 15 PYGMALION C6 89.8000 16 CONTROL C6 78.9000 17 CONTROL C6 84.7000 18 PYGMALION C7 76.1000 19 CONTROL C7 60.6000 20 CONTROL C7 69.6000 21 PYGMALION C8 71.5000 22 CONTROL C8 67.8000 23 CONTROL C8 73.2000 24 PYGMALION C9 69.5000 25 CONTROL C9 72.3000 26 CONTROL C9 73.9000 27 PYGMALION C10 83.7000 28 CONTROL C10 63.7000 29 CONTROL C10 77.7000 The only replication of the Pygmalion treatment is through the blocking. There are however additional replicates of the control treatment in many of the blocks.

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 2 26 PROC mixed DATA=pygmalion cl covtest; class company treat; 27 Title2 ''; 28 MODEL score = treat / outp=next2; 29 random company company*treat; 30 lsmeans treat / pdiff adjust=tukey cl; 31 ods output lsmeans = mmm; 32 RUN; NOTE: Convergence criteria met. NOTE: Estimated G matrix is not positive definite. NOTE: The data set WORK.MMM has 2 observations and 10 variables. NOTE: The data set WORK.NEXT2 has 29 observations and 10 variables. NOTE: The PROCEDURE MIXED printed page 2. NOTE: PROCEDURE MIXED used (Total process time): 0.34 seconds 0.18 seconds The Mixed Procedure Model Information Data Set Dependent Variable Covariance Structure Estimation Method Residual Variance Method Fixed Effects SE Method Degrees of Freedom Method WORK.PYGMALION SCORE Variance Components REML Profile Model-Based Containment Class Level Information Class Levels Values COMPANY 10 C1 C10 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 treat 2 CONTROL PYGMALION Dimensions Covariance Parameters 3 Columns in X 3 Columns in Z 30 Subjects 1 Max Obs Per Subject 29 Number of Observations Number of Observations Read 29 Number of Observations Used 29 Number of Observations Not Used 0 Iteration History Iteration Evaluations -2 Res Log Like Criterion 0 1 189.62816349 1 3 188.52486198 0.00001389 2 1 188.52387871 0.00000001 3 1 188.52387787 0.00000000 Convergence criteria met. CovarianceParameter Estimates Standard Z Cov Parm Estimate Error Value Pr Z Alpha Lower Upper COMPANY 11.5096 13.1166 0.88 0.1901 0.05 2.7832 1177.86 COMPANY*treat 0...... Residual 42.9038 14.1942 3.02 0.0013 0.05 24.5843 93.1732 These are the estimates and tests of the random effects. The company is the estimate of the random effect of blocking. The residual comes from the replicate companies.

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 3 Recall that PROC MIXED can test for homogeneity of variance and can fit nonhomogeneous variances if needed (with / GROUP=TREAT added as an option to the random statement. I tested this and found that it was not significant for this example. The expected mean squares for the random effects are given below. Since this is not balanced with equal replicates in each block the value of the number of replicates (n) would not be an integer value and would not necessarily be the same on each line of the expected mean squares (see GLM EMS below). Power is greatest when the analysis is balanced. Source d.f. Expected Mean Squares (Random) Block b 1 σ 2 + nσ 2 βτ + ntσ 2 τ1 Treatment t 1 σ 2 + nσ 2 βτ + Q τ Block x Treatment (b 1)( t 1) σ 2 + nσ 2 βτ Error bt(n 1) σ 2 Fit Statistics -2 Res Log Likelihood 188.5 AIC (smaller is better) 192.5 AICC (smaller is better) 193.0 BIC (smaller is better) 193.1 Type 3 Tests of Fixed Effects Num Den Effect DF DF F Value Pr > F treat 1 9 7.72 0.0214 Least Squares Means Standard Effect treat Estimate Error DF t Value Pr > t Alpha Lower Upper treat CONTROL 71.5776 1.8514 9 38.66 <.0001 0.05 67.3895 75.7657 treat PYGMALION 78.7000 2.3327 9 33.74 <.0001 0.05 73.4231 83.9769 Differences of Least Squares Means Standard Effect treat _treat Estimate Error DF t Value Pr > t Adjustment Adj P treat CONTROL PYGMALION -7.1224 2.5626 9-2.78 0.0214 Tukey-Kramer 0.0214 Differences of Least Squares Means Adj Adj Effect treat _treat Alpha Lower Upper Lower Upper treat CONTROL PYGMALION 0.05-12.9195-1.3254-12.9193-1.3256 The estimates above are for the fixed effects. Unadjusted (LSD) tests are provided by default and adjusted (TUKEY) tests when requested.

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 4 34 options ps=40 ls=99; 35 proc chart data=mmm; vbar treat / type=mean sumvar=estimate; run; NOTE: The PROCEDURE CHART printed page 3. NOTE: PROCEDURE CHART used (Total process time): 0.16 seconds 0.01 seconds Estimate Mean 80.000000 + ***** ***** 60.000000 + ***** ***** 40.000000 + ***** ***** 20.000000 + ***** ***** -------------------------------- CONTROL PYGMALION treat 36 PROC UNIVARIATE DATA=NEXT2 NORMAL PLOT; VAR resid; RUN; NOTE: The PROCEDURE UNIVARIATE printed pages 4-6. NOTE: PROCEDURE UNIVARIATE used (Total process time): 0.18 seconds 0.04 seconds The UNIVARIATE Procedure Variable: Resid Moments N 29 Sum Weights 29 Mean 0 Sum Observations 0 Std Deviation 5.94652996 Variance 35.3612185 Skewness -0.4620624 Kurtosis -1.0780926 Uncorrected SS 990.114118 Corrected SS 990.114118 Coeff Variation. Std Error Mean 1.10424289 Basic Statistical Measures Location Variability Mean 0.000000 Std Deviation 5.94653 Median 1.637331 Variance 35.36122 Mode. Range 19.17585 Interquartile Range 10.02177

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 5 Tests for Location: Mu0=0 Test -Statistic- -----p Value------ Student's t t 0 Pr > t 1.0000 Sign M 1.5 Pr >= M 0.7111 Signed Rank S 4.5 Pr >= S 0.9245 Tests for Normality Test --Statistic--- -----p Value------ Shapiro-Wilk W 0.912104 Pr < W 0.0193 Kolmogorov-Smirnov D 0.153833 Pr > D 0.0788 Cramer-von Mises W-Sq 0.151146 Pr > W-Sq 0.0221 Anderson-Darling A-Sq 0.949006 Pr > A-Sq 0.0155 Quantiles (Definition 5) Quantile Estimate 100% Max 8.93474 99% 8.93474 95% 8.43361 90% 6.41118 75% Q3 4.21231 50% Median 1.63733 25% Q1-5.80945 10% -9.46526 5% -9.47383 1% -10.24110 0% Min -10.24110 Extreme Observations ------Lowest------ -----Highest----- Value Obs Value Obs -10.24110 10 5.64860 8-9.47383 7 6.37323 12-9.46526 5 6.41118 15-8.66546 19 8.43361 17-8.35988 28 8.93474 6 Stem Leaf # Boxplot Normal Probability Plot 8 49 2 9+ ++* * 6 44 2 +** 4 22566 5 +-----+ **+*** 2 67028 5 ****++ 0 36 2 *--+--* **+++ -0 0443 4-1+ ***+ -2 4 1 +*+ -4 8 1 +-----+ ++++* -6 0 1 +++ * -8 55743 5 *++** ** -10 2 1-11+ *+++ ----+----+----+----+ +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ -2-1 0 +1 +2

EXST3201 Chapter 13c Geaghan Fall 2005: Page 6 40 PROC glm DATA=pygmalion; class company treat; 41 Title2 ''; 42 MODEL score = treat company treat*company; 43 test H=treat company E=treat*company; 44 random company treat*company; 45 RUN; NOTE: TYPE I EMS not available without the E1 option. 46 NOTE: The PROCEDURE GLM printed pages 5-7. NOTE: PROCEDURE GLM used (Total process time): 0.14 seconds 0.07 seconds The GLM Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values COMPANY 10 C1 C10 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 treat 2 CONTROL PYGMALION Number of Observations Read 29 Number of Observations Used 29 Dependent Variable: SCORE Sum of Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F Model 19 1321.322322 69.543280 1.34 0.3358 Error 9 467.039883 51.893320 Corrected Total 28 1788.362205 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE SCORE Mean 0.738845 9.725668 7.203702 74.06897 Source DF Type I SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treat 1 327.3410535 327.3410535 6.31 0.0332 COMPANY 9 682.5172780 75.8352531 1.46 0.2905 COMPANY*treat 9 311.4639907 34.6071101 0.67 0.7221 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treat 1 301.8426278 301.8426278 5.82 0.0391 COMPANY 9 665.6630817 73.9625646 1.43 0.3030 COMPANY*treat 9 311.4639907 34.6071101 0.67 0.7221 Tests of Hypotheses Using the Type III MS for COMPANY*treat as an Error Term Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treat 1 301.8426278 301.8426278 8.72 0.0161 COMPANY 9 665.6630817 73.9625646 2.14 0.1366 Source treat COMPANY COMPANY*treat Error Type III Expected Mean Square Var(Error) + 1.2903 Var(COMPANY*treat) + Q(treat) Var(Error) + 1.2991 Var(COMPANY*treat) + 2.5983 Var(COMPANY) Var(Error) + 1.2991 Var(COMPANY*treat) Var(Error)