18.1 – Multiple Linear Regression

Introduction

Last time we introduced simple linear regression:

• one independent X variable
• one dependent Y variable.

The linear relationship between Y and X was estimated by the method of Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). OLS minimizes the sum of squared distances between the observed responses, and responses predicted by the line. Simple linear regression is analogous to our one-way ANOVA — one outcome or response variable and one factor or predictor variable (Chapter 12.2).

But the world is complicated and so, our one-way ANOVA was extended to the more general case of two or more predictor (factor) variables (Chapter 14). As you might have guessed by now, we can extend simple regression to include more than one predictor variable. In fact, combining ANOVA and regression gives you the general linear model! And, you should not be surprised that statistics has extended this logic to include not only multiple predictor variables, but also multiple response variables. Multiple response variables falls into a category of statistics called multivariate statistics.

Like multi-way ANOVA, multiple regression is the extension of simple linear regression from one independent predictor variable to include two or more predictors. The benefit of this extension is obvious — our models gain realism. All else being equal, the more predictors, the better the model will be at describing and/or predicting the response. Things are not all equal, of course, and we’ll consider two complications of this basic premise, that more predictors are best; in some cases they are not.

However, before discussing the exceptions or even the complications of a multiple linear regression model, we begin by obtaining estimates of the full model, then introduce aspects of how to evaluate the model. We also introduce  and whether a reduced model may be the preferred model.

R code

Multiple regression is easy to do in Rcmdr — recall that we used the general linear model function, lm(), to analyze one-way ANOVA and simple linear regression. In R Commander, we access lm() by

Rcmdr: Statistics → Fit model → Linear model

You may, however, access linear regression through R Commander

We use the same general linear model function for cases of multi-way ANOVA and for multiple regression problems. Simply enter more than one ratio-scale predictor variable and boom!

You now have yourself a multiple regression. You would then proceed to generate the ANOVA table for hypothesis testing

Rcmdr: Models → Hypothesis testing → ANOVA tables

From the output of the regression command, estimates of the coefficients along with standard errors for the estimate and results of t-tests for each coefficient against the respective null hypotheses for each coefficient are also provided. In our discussion of simple linear regression we introduced the components: the intercept, the slope, as well as the concept of model fit, as evidenced by R², the coefficient of determination. These components exist for the multiple regression problem, too, but now we call the slopes partial regression slopes because there are more than one.

Our full multiple regression model becomes

where the coefficients β₁, β₂, … β_n are the partial regression slopes and β₀ is the Y-intercept for a model with 1 – n predictor variables. Each coefficient has a null hypothesis, each has a standard error, and therefore, each coefficient can be tested by t-test.

Now, regression, like ANOVA, is an enormous subject and we cannot do it justice in the few days we will devote to it. We can, however, walk you through a fairly typical example. I’ve posted a small data set diabetesCholStatin at the end of this page. Scroll down or click here. View the data set and complete your basic data exploration routine: make scatterplots and box plots.  We think (predict) that body size and drug dose cause variation in serum cholesterol levels in adult men. But do both predict cholesterol levels?

Selecting the best model

We have two predictor variables, and we can start to see whether none, one, or both of the predictors contribute to differences in cholesterol levels. In this case, both contribute significantly. The power of multiple regression approaches is that it provides a simultaneous test of a model which may have many explanatory variables deemed appropriate to describe a particular response. More generally, it is sometimes advisable to think more philosophically about how to select a best model.

In model selection, some would invoke Occam’s razor — given a set of explanations, the simplest should be selected — to justify seeking simpler models. There are a number of approaches (forward selection, backward selection, or stepwise selection), and the whole effort of deciding among competing models is complicated with a number of different assumptions, strengths and weaknesses. I refer you to the discussion below, which of course is just a very brief introduction to a very large subject in (bio)statistics!

Let’s get the full regression model

The statistical model is

As written in R format, our model is ChLDL ~ BMI + Dose + Statin.

We can now proceed in R Commander to fit the model.

Rmdr: Statistics → Fit models → Linear model

How the model is inputted into linear model menu is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Screenshot of Rcmdr linear model menu with our model elements in place.

The output

summary(LinearModel.1)
Call:
lm(formula = ChLDL ~ BMI + Dose + Statin, data = cholStatins)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median     3Q    Max
-3.7756 -0.5147 -0.0449 0.5038 4.3821

Coefficients:
                      Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)           1.016715   1.178430   0.863 0.39041
BMI                   0.058078   0.047012   1.235 0.21970
Dose                 -0.014197   0.004829  -2.940 0.00411 **
Statin[Statin2]       0.514526   0.262127   1.963 0.05255 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Residual standard error: 1.31 on 96 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.1231, Adjusted R-squared: 0.09565
F-statistic: 4.49 on 3 and 96 DF, p-value: 0.005407

Question. What are the estimates of the model coefficients (rounded)?

• = intercept = 1.017
• = slope for variable BMI = 0.058
• = slope for variable Dose = -0.014
• = slope for variable Statin = -0.515

Question. Which of the three coefficients were statistically different from their null hypothesis (p-value < 5%)?

Answer: Only coefficient was judged statistically significant at the Type I error level of 5% (p = 0.0041).  Of the four null hypotheses we have for the coefficients:

• = 0
• = 0
• = 0; we only reject the null hypothesis for Dose coefficient.
• = 0)

The important take-home concept is about the lack of a direct relationship between the magnitude of the estimate of the coefficient and the likelihood that it will be statistically significant! In absolute value terms , but was not close to statistical significance (p = 0.220).

We generate a 2D scatterplot and include the regression lines (by group=Statin) to convey the relationship between at least one of the predictors (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Scatter plot of predicted LDL against dose of a statin drug. Regression lines represent the different statin drugs (Statin1, Statin2).

Question. Based on the graph, can you explain why there will be no statistical differences between levels of the statin drug type, Statin1 (shown open circles) vs. Statin2 (shown closed red circles).

Because we have two predictors (BMI and Statin Dose), you may also elect to use a 3D-scatterplot. Here’s one possible result (Fig 3).

Figure 3. 3D plot of BMI and dose of Statin drugs on change in LDL levels (green Statin2, blue Statin1).

R code for Figure 3.

Graph made in Rcmdr: Graphs → 3D Graph → 3D scatterplot …

scatter3d(ChLDL~BMI+Dose|Statin, data=diabetesCholStatin, fit="linear", 
residuals=TRUE, parallel=FALSE, bg="white", axis.scales=TRUE, grid=TRUE, 
ellipsoid=FALSE)

Figure 4. An example of a possible interactive 3D plot; the file embedded in this page is not interactive, just an animation.

Diagnostic plots

While visualization concerns are important, let’s return to the statistics. All evaluations of regression equations should involve an inspection of the residuals. Inspection of the residuals allows you to decide if the regression fits the data; if the fit is adequate, you then proceed to evaluate the statistical significance of the coefficients.

The default diagnostic plots (Fig 5) R provides are available from

Rcmdr: Models → Graphs → Basic diagnostics plots

Four plots are returned

Figure 5. R’s default regression diagnostic plots.

Each of these diagnostic plots in Figure 4 gives you clues about the model fit.

1. Plot of residuals vs. fitted helps you identify patterns in the residuals
2. Normal Q-Q plot helps you to see if the residuals are approximately normally distributed
3. Scale-location plot provides a view of the spread of the residuals
4. The residuals vs. leverage plot allows you to identify influential data points.

We introduced these plots in Chapter 17.8 when we discussed fit of simple linear model to data. My conclusion? No obvious trend in residuals, so linear regression is a fit to the data; data not normally distributed Q-Q plot shows S-shape.

Interpreting the diagnostic plots for this problem

The “Normal Q-Q” plot allows us to view our residuals against a normal distribution (the dotted line). Our residuals do no show an ideal distribution: low for the first quartile, about on the line for intermediate values, then high for the 3rd and 4th quartile residuals. If the data were bivariate normal we would see the data fall along a straight line. The “S-shape” suggests log-transformation of the response and or one or more of the predictor variables.

There also seems to be a pattern in residuals vs the predicted (fitted) values. There is a trend of increasing residuals as cholesterol levels increase, which is particularly evident in the “scale-location” plot. Residuals tended to be positive at low and high doses, but negative at intermediate doses. This suggests that the relationship between predictors and cholesterol levels may not be linear, and it demonstrates what statisticians refer to as a monotonic spread of residuals.

The last diagnostic plot looks for individual points that influence, change, or “leverage” the regression — in other words, if a point is removed, does the general pattern change? If so, then the point had “leverage” and thus we need to decide whether or not to include the datum. diagnostic plots Cook’s distance is a measure of the influence of a point in regression. Points with large Cook’s distance values warrant additional checking.

The multicollinearity problem

Statistical model building is a balancing act by the statistician. While simpler models may be easier to interpret and, perhaps, to use, it is a basic truism that the more predictor variables the model includes, the more realistic the statistical model. However, each additional parameter that is added to the statistical model must be independent of all other parameters already in the model. To the extent that this assumption is violated, the problem is termed multicollinearity. If predictor variables are highly correlated, then they are essentially just linear combinations and do not provide independent evidence. For example, one would naturally not include two core body temperature variables in a statistical model on basal metabolic rate, one in degrees Fahrenheit and the other in degrees Celsius, because  it is a simple linear conversion between the two units. This would be an example of structural collinearity: the collinearity is because of misspecification of the model variables. In contrast, collinearity among predictor variables may because the data are themselves correlated. For example, if multiple measures of body size are included: weight, height, length of arm, etc., then we would expect these to be correlated, ie, data multicollinearity.

Collinearity in statistical models may have a number of undesirable effects on a multiple regression model. These include

• estimates of coefficients not stable: with collinearity, values of coefficients depend on other variables in the model; if collinear predictors, then the assumption of independent predictor variables is violated.
• precision of the estimates decreases (standard error of estimates increase).
• statistical power decreases.
• p-values for individual coefficients not trust worthy.

Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor

Absence of multicollinearity is important assumption of multiple regression. A partial test is to calculate product moment correlations among predictor variables. For example, when we calculate the correlation between BMI and Dose for our model, we get r = 0.101 (P = 0.3186), and therefore would tentatively conclude that there was little correlation between our predictor variables.

A number of diagnostic statistics have been developed to test for multicollinearity. Tolerance for a particular independent variable (Xi) is defined as 1 minus the proportion of variance it shares with the other independent variables in the regression analysis (1 − R²_i) (O’Brien 2007). Tolerance reports the proportion of total variance explained by adding the X_i–^th predictor variable that is unrelated to the other variables in the model. A small value for tolerance indicates multicollinearity — and that the predictor variable is nearly a perfect combination (linear) of the variables already in the model and therefore should be omitted from the model. Because tolerance is defined in relation to the coefficient of determination you can interpret a tolerance score as the unique variance accounted for by a predictor variable.

A second, related diagnostic of multicollinearity is called the Variance Inflation Factor, VIF. VIF is the inverse of tolerance.

VIF shows how much of the variance of a regression coefficient is increased because of collinearity with the other predictor variables in the model. VIF is easy to interpret: a tolerance of 0.01 has a VIF of 100; a tolerance of 0.1 has a VIF of 10; a tolerance of 0.5 has a VIF of 2, and so on. Thus, small values of tolerance and large values of VIF are taken as evidence of multicollinearity.

Rcmdr: Models → Numerical diagnostics → Variation-inflation factors

vif(RegModel.2)
      BMI     Dose 
1.010256 1.010256

A rule of thumb is that if VIF is greater than 5 then there is multicollinearity; with VIF values close to one we would conclude, like our results from the partial correlation estimate above, that there is little evidence for a problem of collinearity between the two predictor variables. They can therefore remain in the model.

Solutions for multicollinearity

If there is substantial multicollinearity then you cannot simply trust the estimates of the coefficients. Assuming that there hasn’t been some kind of coding error on your part, then you may need to find a solution. One solution is to drop one of the predictor variables and redo the regression model. Another option is to run what is called a Principal Components Regression (PCR).  One takes the predictor variables and runs a Principal Component Analysis to reduce the number of variables, then the regression is run on the PCA components. By definition, the PCA components are independent of each other. Another option is to use ridge regression approach.

Like any diagnostic rule, however, one should not blindly apply a rule of thumb. A VIF of 10 or more may indicate multicollinearity, but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the linear regression model requires that the researcher reduce the number of predictor variables or analyze the problem using a different statistical method to address multicollinearity as the sole criteria of a poor statistical model. Rather, the researcher needs to address all of the other issues about model and parameter estimate stability, including sample size. Unless the collinearity is extreme (like a correlation of 1.0 between predictor variables!), larger sample sizes alone will work in favor of better model stability (by lowering the sample error) (O’Brien 2007).

Questions

1. Write up three learning outcomes for this page. Hint: Point your favorite generative AI to this page and ask for help.
2. Please explain why the magnitude of the slope is not the key to statistical significance of a slope? Hint: look at the equation of the t-test for statistical significance of the slope.
3. Consider the following scenario. A researcher measures his subjects multiple times for blood pressure over several weeks, then plots all of the values over time. In all, the data set consists of thousands of readings. He then proceeds to develop a model to explain blood pressure changes over time. What kind of collinearity is present in his data set? Explain your choice.
4. We noted that Dose could be viewed as categorical variable. Convert Dose to factor variable (fDose) and redo the linear model. Compare the summary output and discuss the additional coefficients.
   • Use Rcmdr: Data → Manage variables in active data set →  Convert numeric Variables to Factors to create a new factor variable fDose. It’s ok to use the numbers as factor levels.
5. We flagged the change in LDL as likely to be not normally distributed. Create a log10-transformed variable for ChLDL and perform the multiple regression again.
   1. Write the new statistical model
   2. Obtain the regression coefficients — are they statistically significant?
   3. Run basic diagnostic plots and evaluate for

Quiz Chapter 18.1

Multiple Linear Regression

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data set

Chapter 18 contents

• Introduction
• Multiple linear regression
• Nonlinear regression
• Logistic regression
• Generalized Linear Squares
• Selecting the best model
• Compare two linear models
• References and suggested readings (Ch17 & 18)

16.5 – Instrument reliability and validity

Introduction

What’s in a measure? We’ve talked about measurement extensively, eg, Chapter 3.3 . As review, a measure is simply the result of some process used to quantify an object or item of interest. Instead of a number, a measure may return a classification: for a given sample unit, the unit may be categorized as meeting the definition and therefore given a “yes” or it does not (“no”), a dichotomous response. The method used to obtain the measurement is called the instrument. An instrument may indeed be an instrument like a sphygmomanometer or a thermocycler equipped with fluorescent optics. Instrument in this context however also includes questionnaires or surveys intended.

In biology and biomedical research, there are thousands of kinds of measurements one has to choose among depending on the question at hand. In many cases choices are straightforward: in morphometrics, the instruments of choice will be lengths and areas and shapes quantified by rulers and application of well-defined geometry equations. Where multiple measurement approaches apply, reliability analysis can help decide which method to use, or, importantly, whether the different approaches agree. For example, Kruse et al (2017) compared ultra sound and magnetic resonance imaging measurements of Achilles tendon cross-sectional area; they found that although both methods were internally consistent, the methods consistently yielded different results.

In other arenas, the choice of instrument will be less clear. For example, doctors use a questionnaire to rank cardiac patients for attention in perioperative care, the care a surgical patient receives from admittance to release from the hospital, to improve patient outcomes. The questionnaire will include a number of questions intended to provide a summary picture of each patient so that if resources are limited, the most at risk patients may get priority. To the extent the questionnaire in fact is a useful discriminant, then the instrument may benefit both hospital and patients.

In conducting measures one selects instruments that provide valid results. That is, provided the instruments are maintained and well-calibrated, use of a sphygmomanometer by a trained technician will return accurate and valid measures of a subject’s blood pressure. Survey questions also can be evaluated for validity although the extent to which survey questions measure what is intended may be more complex. For example, if the intent is to ascertain a subject’s chance (ie, risk) of graduating from college in the next year, how useful would the following question be if administered to a room filled with first-year students?

Survey question: How old are you now?

Simple enough question, but immediately, several questions come to mind. Do we want our responses in years, months, days, hours, minutes, or seconds?  What about for those individuals that know only approximately when they were born, ie, in many parts of the world, registration of birth is irregular. So, we may even wonder about how necessary it is we ask this question of college students in the first place, eg, do we really want to trigger our subjects for a case in which most of our subjects are about the same age?

Perhaps we decide this is important information to ask. When do you start counting? Most Western cultures start the clock at zero when the baby is born. In China and many other Eastern Asian countries, people are born at one. In India, once a person reaches a year plus six months, the person would be considered two years old, whereas in the USA, the person would still be considered one until the second birthday. Thus, depending on the person’s culture identity, responses to this simple question may differ by as much as a year.

Types of reliability

Regardless of instrument, all measures contain error. Hence, even a valid instrument may not return an accurate measure for each subject. The concept of instrument reliability is concerned with error of measurement. Reliability may be defined in at least four contexts:

• internal consistency
• inter-rater (also called inter-observer reliability)
• parallel-forms
• test-retest

For an instrument to show internal consistency, this implies that the survey has multiple questions that pertain to the same concept or topic, but written in different ways to reveal effects of word choice, for example. Inter-rater reliability refers to an instrument that when used by different observers (eg, science fair judges), the observers give the same or at least consistent scores for the same test. Parallel forms reliability implies that two surveys on, perhaps scientific literacy in high school students, yield the same conclusions even though each survey has  different questions. Test-retest reliability is a straight-forward concept — if the instrument is repeated, are the same scores achieved?

Split-half reliability

Split-half reliability is a method for assessing a measurement tool’s internal consistency by determining if different parts of it produce consistent results. This is done by splitting a single measure (eg, a test or a set of behavioral observations) into two comparable halves, calculating a score for each half, and then finding the correlation between the two sets of scores. For example, the ManyDogs research consortium used split-half design to investigate whether or not dogs consistently interpret human pointing instructions (Espinoza et al 2023). Alternatives to split-half reliability include test-retest reliability, parallel-forms reliability, and inter-rater reliability — see Chapter 12.3, Chapter 14.3 — (Cook and Beckman 2006). These methods assess different aspects of consistency, such as stability over time (test-retest), consistency between two different but equivalent tests (parallel-forms), or agreement between observers (inter-rater). Both ICC and split-half reliability address consistency. The primary distinction is that split-half reliability is a method for assessing the internal consistency of a single test administration, while the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) is a more flexible statistical measure used to assess absolute agreement or consistency across different measures, time points, or, most commonly, between multiple raters.

For split-half reliability, a product moment correlation is first calculated between the score of the two halves. A high correlation indicates that all items or observations within the measure are likely assessing the same underlying construct, while a low correlation suggests inconsistency. The correlation coefficient is typically adjusted using the Spearman-Brown prediction formula to estimate the reliability of the original full-length measure.

Equation of the Spearman-Brown prediction (or prophecy) formula.

Reliability estimators

In general, correlation-type measures can be used to quantify the extent of reliability (also termed reproducibility or repeatability). The product moment correlation is used to quantify the relationship between two measures where there is clear distinction between the two variables. For example, to quantify the association between body weight and height, the proper correlation to calculate would be the product moment correlation because it is clear that a measure of weight goes with the variable weight whereas height measures goes with the variable height.

But it is less clear which variable should go first in the calculation when you have repeat measures of essentially the same thing. Which goes first, the first observation of sprint running speed over a 100 meters of the second measure of the same person’s performance? Logically, we may say take the first as the X variable and the second as the Y variable, but there is no mathematical justification.

For a more challenging example, consider measures of body mass on male and female birds that are mated, and the researcher wants to assess whether there is a correlation between male and female weight — which variable goes first in the analysis, male weight or female weight? In such cases the intraclass correlation coefficient may be used (Chapter 12.3, Chapter 16.4). The intraclass correlation can be estimated as the ratio of the variance of interest over the sum of the variance of interest plus the variance error. Interest in the case of sprint running would be the two (or more) trials or for the bird weights the variable of interest is weights of male and female birds within a mated pair. The formula for ICC in this context is given by

where k is the number of repeat measures and MS refers to the mean squares from the one-way ANOVA and B and e refer to between (among) subjects and e is the error or within subjects variability.

Cronbach’s alpha is a reliability measure that quantifies the internal consistency of items in a survey or instrument by calculating the average among these items. Cronbach’s alpha will tend to increase as the intercorrelations among test items increase, and in this sense can be taken as an internal consistency estimate of the reliability of test scores.

where k is the number of items, s_i² is the variance of the i-th item, and s_T² is the variance of the total score after summing all items.

Cronbach’s alpha is one of the oldest measures, and at least in part because of how long ago it was introduced, is very common as a measure of reliability. However, there are other estimators and in some aspects these perform better than Cronbach’s alpha.

Reliability statistics like Cronbach’s alpha are available in the R package psych. See also R package agRee.

Example. Judging of posters

library(psych)
alpha(myJudge)

Output from R

Reliability analysis 
Call: alpha(x = myJudge)

raw_alpha std.alpha G6(smc) average_r S/N   ase  mean   sd median_r
     0.74      0.74   0.59       0.59 2.9  0.21   2.8  1.1     0.59

lower alpha upper 95% confidence boundaries
0.33 0.74 1.15

Questions

1. Write up three learning outcomes for this page. Hint: Point your favorite generative AI to this page and ask for help.

2. A team of behavioral ecologists designs a new test to measure problem-solving ability in domestic dogs. Each dog is given a puzzle box, and the experimenters record the time taken to retrieve a treat and number of errors made. They want to ensure that their measurement instrument is reliable before drawing conclusions about individual differences in cognition.

Question: Describe how you would test the reliability of this instrument. Which type(s) of reliability would be most appropriate (split-half, test–retest, parallel-forms, inter-rater), and why?

Quiz Chapter 16.5

Instrument reliability and validity

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

---

Chapter 16 contents

• Introduction
• Product moment correlation
• Causation and Partial correlation
• Data aggregation and correlation
• Spearman and other correlations
• Instrument reliability and validity
• Similarity and Distance
• References and suggested readings

14.2 – Sources of variation

Introduction

Sources of variation, or components of the two-way ANOVA include two factors, each with two or more levels (groups), and collectively, factors are often referred to as the main effects in these types of ANOVA. The other source of variation in a two-way ANOVA is the interaction between the two factors. Below, I have listed the important components, although I have not included how the sum of squares are calculated. You are expected to know the sources of variation for this most basic two-way ANOVA table (Fig 1). You should also be able to solve any missing elements in one of these tables by utilizing any included information.

Figure 1. ANOVA table for two-way, balanced, replicated design.

Taking each row from Figure 1 one at a time we have

Source	DF	Mean Squares	F-statistic
First Factor

where Source refers to the source of variation, DF refers to Degrees of Freedom, a is the number of levels (groups) of the first factor, SS refers to Sum of Squares, and MS refers to the Mean Squares.

Next is the second factor

Source	DF	Mean Squares	F-statistic
First Factor

where b is the number of levels (groups) of the second factor. Next is the interaction between the first and second factors.

Source	DF	Mean Squares	F-statistic
Interaction

and lastly the Within-cell Error or residual source of variation

Source	DF	Mean Squares	F-statistic
Error

where n is the number of experimental units for each group. Note that if the sample size differs for one or more groups (levels),then the design would be unbalanced and this formula does not work to determine the degrees of freedom. The total degrees of freedom for the two-way ANOVA is simply N – 1, where N is the sample size for the entire problem; a little algebra shows that N may be calculated as

Unbalanced designs

An unbalanced design implies that observations are missing value for one or more groups. What to do if data are missing? Decision depends on how the data are missing (see Chapter 5). For example, if data are missing at random with respect to treatment, then this should not affect inference. If data are missing not at random, then inference, logically, must be impacted. Calculating the ANOVA, moreover, becomes a different matter. In the one-way ANOVA, no real problem arises although setting up contrasts among the levels requires a weighting term to be factored into the calculations. For higher-level ANOVA involving two or more factors the sums of squares for treatment effects are no longer simple partitioning into the different sources of variation. The sources overlap and the order by which the Factors enter into the statistical model now affects the calculations. Thus, while setting up the calculations for the balanced design is straight-forward, perhaps surprisingly, if group sizes differ, this simple relationship for calculating the degrees of freedom, sums of squares, and Mean squares  become an unsolvable problem. This problem is largely solved by the general linear model.

Questions

1. Based on the results of a two-way ANOVA, the error sums of squares (SSE) was computed to be 160. If we ignore one of the factors and perform a one-way ANOVA using the same data, will the SSE be the same as in the two-way ANOVA, or will it increase?  Decrease? Explain your choice.
2. While conducting a two-way ANOVA, you conclude that a statistically significant interaction exists between factor 1 and factor 2. What should be your next step? Do you drop the interaction term from the model and redo the analysis or do you report the results of factor effects including the non-significant interaction?

Quiz Chapter 14.2

Sources of variation

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 14 contents

• Introduction
• Crossed, balanced, fully replicated
• Sources of variation
• Fixed effects, Random effects
• Randomized block design
• Nested designs
• Some other ANOVA designs
• Rcmdr Multiway ANOVA
• More on the linear model in Rcmdr
• References and suggested readings

14 – ANOVA designs, multiple factors

Introduction

In our previous discussions about t-tests and ANOVA we focused on procedures with one dependent (response) variable and a single independent (predictor) factor variable that may cause variation in the response variable. In this chapter we extend our discussions about the general linear model by reviewing

1. One-way ANOVA and provided a few examples of the one-way design.
2. To review and set the stage for adding a second independent variable to the model.

Additional one-way ANOVA examples

1. In a plants, we may have a response variable like height and one factor variable (location: sun vs. shade) thought to influence plant height (eg, Aphalo et al 1999).

2. Pulmonary macrophage phagocytosis behavior (response variable) after exposure of toads to clean air or ozone (factor with 2 levels) (Dohm et al. 2005).

3. Monitor weight change on subjects after 6 weeks eating different diet (DASH, control) (Elmer et al. 2006).

All three of the examples are based on the same statistical model which may be written as:

where μ is the grand mean, Y is the response variable and A is the independent variable, or factor, with k = 1, 2, …. K levels, groups, or treatments. The total number of experimental units (eg, subjects) is given by i = 1, 2, 3, … n. Note that in the first and third examples, because there were only two groups (example 1: k = location, shade; example 3: k = DASH, control) note that this problem could have been evaluated as an independent sample t-test. For the second example, there were three groups so k = clean air, first ozone level, second ozone level).

Two-way ANOVA with replication

As useful as the one-way ANOVA design can be, it is a “one-factor-at-a-time” approach (Radzilani et al 2025), experiments are typically more complicated than a single t-test or one-way ANOVA design can handle; rarely would we conduct an experiment that reflects only one source of variation. Looking only at variability for one factor at a time while while keeping all other factors constant ignores interactions between factors, resulting in potentially serious model bias (eg, discussed in Vatcheva et al 2015).

For example, while diet has a profound effect on weight, clearly, activity levels are also important. At a minimum, when considering a weight loss program, we would want to control or monitor activity of the subjects. This is a two-factor model, and the main effects, the two factors, were diet (factor A) and activity, (factor B). Both are expected to affect weight loss, and, perhaps, they may do so in complicated ways — an interaction (eg, on DASH diet, weight loss is accelerated when subjects exercise regularly).

The subject of this chapter is the introduction to two-way ANOVA designs. In fact, to many, ANOVA design is practically synonymous to a statistician when they think about experimental design (Lindman 1992; Quinn and Keough 2002). As noted by Quinn and Keough (2002) in the preface to their book, “… many biological hypotheses, even deceptively simple ones, are matched by complex statistical models” (p. xv). Once you start adding factor variables there becomes a number of ways in which the groups and experimental units can be distributed, and thus impact the inferences one can make from the ANOVA results. The first statistical model we introduced was the one-way ANOVA. Next, we begin the two-way ANOVA with the crossed, balanced, fully replicated design. Along the way we introduce model symbols to help us communicate the design structure and implications of the statistical models.

Quizzes in this chapter

A total of 71 questions among the several subchapters, a mix of true or false and multiple choice question format.

Chapter 14 contents

• Introduction
• Crossed, balanced, fully replicated
• Sources of variation
• Fixed effects, Random effects
• Randomized block design
• Nested designs
• Some other ANOVA designs
• Rcmdr Multiway ANOVA
• More on the linear model in Rcmdr
• References and suggested readings

13.4 – Tests for Equal Variances

Introduction

In order to carry out statistical tests correctly, we must test our data first to see if our sample conforms to the assumptions of the statistical test. If our data do not meet these assumptions, then inferences drawn may be incorrect. How far off our inferences may be depends on a number of factors, but mostly it depends on how far from the expectations our data are.

One assumption we make with parametric tests involving ratio scale data is that the data could be from a normally distributed population. The other key assumption introduced, but not described in detail for the two-sample t-test, was that the variability in the two groups must be the same, ie, homoscedasticity. Thus, in order to carry out the independent sample t-test, we must assume that the variances are equal.

There are two general reasons we may want to concern ourselves with a test for the differences between two variances

1. The t-test (and other tests like one-way ANOVA) requires that the two samples compared have the same variances. If the Variances are Not Equal we need to perform a modified t-test (see Welch’s formula).
2. We may also be interested in the differences between the variances in two populations.

Example 1: In genetics we might be interested in the difference between the variability of response of inbred lines (little genetic variation but environmental variation) versus an outbred populations (lots of genetic and environmental variation).

Example 2: Environmental stress can cause organisms to have developmental instability. This might cause organisms to be more variable in morphology or the two sides (right & left) of an organism may develop non-symmetrically. Therefore, polluted environments might cause organisms to have greater variability compared to non-polluted environments.

The first way to test the variances is to use the F test. This works for two groups.

For more than two groups, we’ll use different tests (eg, Bartlett’s test, Levene’s test).

Remember that the formula for the sample variance is

The Null Hypothesis is that the two samples have the same variances:

The Alternative Hypothesis is that the two samples do not have the same variances:

Note: I prefer to evaluate this as a one-tailed test: identify the larger of the two variances and take that as the numerator Then, the null hypothesis is that

and therefore, the alternative hypothesis is that (ie, a one-tailed test).

Another way to state equal variance test is that we are testing for homogeneity of variances. You may run across the term homoscedasticity; it is the same thing, just a different three dollar word for “equal variances.”

Stated yet another way, if we reject the null hypothesis, then the variances are unequal or show heterogeneity. An additional and equivalent $3 word for inequality of variances is called heteroscedasticity.

More about the F-test

For the F-test, the null hypothesis is that the variances are equal. This means that the “expected” F value will be one: F = 1.0. (The F-distribution differs from t-distribution because it requires 2 values for DF, and ranges from 1 to infinity for every possible combination of v₁ and v₂).

To evaluate the null hypothesis we need the degrees of freedom. For the F test we need two different degrees of freedom, one set for each group): from Table 2, Appendix – F distribution, look up 5% Type I error line in this table because we make it one tailed.

I need the F-test statistic at

Examples of difference between two variances, Table 1.

Sample 1: Aggressiveness of Inbred Mice (number of bites in 30 minutes)

Sample 2: Aggressiveness of Outbred Mice (number of bites in 30 minutes)

Table 1. Aggression by inbred and outbred mice.

1. Identify the null and alternative hypotheses
2. Calculate Variances
3. Calculate F-test
4. The “test statistic” for this hypothesis test was F = 7.2 / 0.8 = 9.0
5. Determine Critical Value of the F table (Table 2, Appendix – F distribution)

Example of how to find the critical values of the F distribution for and numerator  and denominator .

Table 2. Portion of F distribution, see Appendix – F distribution.

Or, instead of using tables, use R

Rcmdr: Distributions → F distribution → F probabilities

and enter the numbers as shown below (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Screenshot R Commander F distribution probabilities.

This will return the p-value, and you would interpret this against your Type I error rate of 5% as you do for other tests.

From Table 2, Appendix – F distribution we find

And the p-value = 0.015

pf(c(9), df1=5, df2=5, lower.tail=FALSE)
[1] 0.01537472

Question: Reject or Accept null hypothesis?

Question: What is the biological interpretation or conclusion from this result?

R code

Rather than play around with the tables of critical values, which are awkward and old-school (and I am showing you these stats tables so that you get a feel for the process, not so you’d actually use them in real practice), use Rcmdr to generate the F test and therefore return the F distribution probability value. As you may expect, R provides a number of options for testing the equal variances assumption, including the F test. The F test is limited to only two groups and, because it is a parametric test, it also makes the assumption of normality, so the F test should not be viewed as necessarily the best test for the equal variances assumption among groups. We present it here because it is a logical test to understand and because of its relevance to the Mean Square ratios in the ANOVA procedures.

So, without further justification, here is the presentation on how to get the F test in Rcmdr. At the end of this section I present a better procedure than the F test for evaluating the equal variance assumption called the Levene test.

Return to the bite data in the table above and enter the data into an R data frame. Note that the data in the table above are unstacked; R expects the data to be stacked, so either create a stacked worksheet and transcribe the data appropriately into the cells of the worksheet, or, go ahead and enter the values into two separate columns then use the Stack variables in active data set… command from the Data menu in Rcmdr.

Then, proceed to perform the F test.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Variances → Two variances F-test… 

The first context menu popup is where you enter the variables (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Screenshot data options R Commander F test

Because there are only two variables in the data set and because Strain contains the text labels of inbred or outbred whereas the other variable is numeric data type, R will correctly select the variables for you by default. Select the “Options” tab to set the parameters of the F test (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Screenshot menu options R Commander F test.

When you are finished setting the alternative hypothesis and confidence levels, proceed with the F test by clicking the OK button.

    F test to compare two variances

data:  mice.aggression
F = 0.1111, num df = 5, denom df = 5, p-value = 0.03075
alternative hypothesis: true ratio of variances is not equal to 1
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.01554788 0.79404243
sample estimates:
ratio of variances 
         0.1111111

End of R output.

Levene’s test of equal variances

We will discuss this test in more detail following our presentation on ANOVA. For now, we note that the test works on two or more groups and is a conservative test of the equal variance assumption. Nonparametric tests in general make fewer assumptions about the data and in particular make no assumption of normality like the F test. It is in this context that the Levene’s test would be preferable over the F test. Below we present only how to calculate the statistic in R and Rcmdr and provide the output for the same mouse data set.

Assuming the data are stacked, obtain the Levene’s test in Rcmdr by clicking on (Fig 4).

Rcmdr: Statistics → Variances → Levene’s test… 

Figure 4. Screenshot menu options R Commander Levene’s test.

Select the median and the factor variable (in our case “Strain”) and the numeric outcome variable (“Bites”), then click OK button.

Tapply(bites ~ strain, var, na.action=na.omit, data=mice.aggression) # variances by group
inbred outbred
   0.8     7.2

leveneTest(bites ~ strain, data=mice.aggression, center="median")
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance (center = median)
      Df F value  Pr(>F)
group  1       4 0.07339 .
      10
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

End of R output

Compare the p-values. In both cases — F test and Levene’s test — we’re testing the same hypothesis (equal variances), but the p-values do not agree between the parametric F test and the nonparametric Levene’s test! If we were to go by the results of the F test, p-value was 0.031, less than out Type I error of 5% and we would tentatively conclude that the assumption of equal variances may not apply. On the other hand, if we go with the Levene’s test the p-value was 0.074, which is greater than our Type I error rate of 5% and we would therefore conclude the opposite, that the assumption of equal variances might apply! Both conclusions can’t hold, so which test result of equal variances do we prefer, the parametric F test or the nonparametric Levene’s test? Answer — we’d go with Levene’s because the F test is parametric and, therefore, also assumes normality.

Cahoy’s bootstrap method

Draft. Cahoy (2010). Variance-based statistic bootstrap test of heterogeneity of variances. we discuss bootstrap methods in Chapter 19.2; in brief, bootstrapping involves resampling the dataset and computing a statistic on each sample. This method may be more powerful, that is, more likely to correctly reject the null hypothesis when warranted, compared to Levene’s test.

for now, install package testequavar.

Function for testing two samples.

equa2vartest(inbred, outbred, 0.05, 999)

R output

[[1]]
[1] "Decision: Reject the Null"
$Alpha
[1] 0.05
$NumberOfBootSamples
[1] 999
$BootPvalue
[1] 0.006

The output “Decision: Reject the Null” reflects output from a box-type acceptance region.

Compare results from Levene’s test: p-value 0.07339 suggests accept hypothesis of equal variances, whereas bootstrap method indicates variances heterogenous, ie, reject equal variance hypothesis. However, re-running the test without setting the seed for R’s pseudorandom number generator will result in different p-values. For example, I re-ran Cahoy’s test five times with the following results:

0.008
0.006
0.002
0.01
0.004

Questions

1. Test assumption of equal variances by Bartlett’s method and by Levene’s test on OliveMoment variable from the Comet tea data set introduced in Chapter 12.1. Do the methods agree? If not, which test result would you choose?
   • BONUS. Retest homogeneous variance hypothesis by equa3vartest(Copper.Hazel, Copper, Hazel, 0.05, 999). Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis by bootstrap method?
2. Test assumption of equal variances by Bartlett’s method and by Levene’s test on Height from the O’hia data set introduced in Chapter 12.7. Do the methods agree? If not, which result would you choose?
   • BONUS. Retest homogeneous variance hypothesis by equa3vartest(M.1, M.2, M.3, 0.05, 999). Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis by bootstrap method?

Quiz Chapter 13.4

Tests for Equal Variances

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

R code reminders

The bootstrap method expects the variables in unstacked format. A simple method to extract the variables from the stacked data is to use a command like the following. For example, extract OliveMoment values for Copper-Hazel treatment.

Copper.Hazel <- cometTea$OliveMoment[1:10]

For Copper, Hazel, replace above with [11:20], and [21-30] respectively. Note: changed variable name from Copper-Hazel to Copper.Hazel. The hyphen is a reserved character in R.

Chapter 13 contents

• Introduction
• ANOVA Assumptions
• Why tests of assumption are important
• Test assumption of normality
• Tests for Equal Variances
• References and suggested readings

12.7 – Many tests one model

Introduction

In our introduction to parametric tests we so far have covered one and two sample t-tests and now the multiple sample or one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In subsequent sections we will cover additional tests, each with their own name. It is time to let you in on a little secret. All of these tests, t-tests, ANOVA, and linear and multiple regression we will work on later in the book belong to one family of statistical models. That model is called the general Linear Model (LM), not to be confused with the Generalized Linear Model (GLM) (Burton et al 1998; Guisan et al 2002). This greatly simplifies our approach to learning how to implement statistical tests in R (or other statistical programs) —  you only need to learn one approach: the general Linear Model (LM) function lm().

Brief overview of linear models

With the inventions of correlation, linear regression, t-tests, and analysis of variance in the period between 1890 and 1920, subsequent work led to the realization that these tests (and many others!) were special cases of a general model, the general linear model, or LM. The LM itself is a special case of the generalized linear model, or GLM; among the differences between LM and GLM, in LM, the dependent variable is ratio scale and errors in the response (dependent) variable(s) are assumed to come from a Gaussian (normal) distribution. In contrast, for GLM, the response variable may be categorical or continuous, and error distributions other than normal (Gaussian), may be applied. The GLM user must specify both the error distribution family (eg, Gaussian) and the link function, which specifies the relationship among the response and predictor variables. While we will use the GLM functions when we attempt to model growth functions and calculate EC₅₀ in dose-response problems, we will not cover GLM this semester.

The general Linear Model, LM

In matrix form, the LM can be written as

where is a matrix of response variables predicted by independent variables contained in matrix  and weighted by linear coefficients in the vector b. Basically, all of the predictor variables are combined to produce a single linear predictor . By adding an error component we have the complete linear model.

In the linear model, the error distribution is assumed to be normally distributed, or “Gaussian.”

R code

The bad news is that LM in R (and in any statistical package, actually) is a fairly involved set of commands; the good news is that once you understand how to use this command, and can work with the Options, you will be able to conduct virtually all of the tests we will use this semester, from two-sample t-tests to multiple linear regression. In the end, all you need is the one Rcmdr command to perform all of these tests.

We begin with a data set, ohia.ch12. Scroll down this page or click here to get the R code.

I found a nice report on a common garden experiment with o`hia (Corn and Hiesey 1973). O`hia (Metrosideros polymorpha) is an endemic, but wide-spread tree in the Hawaiian islands (Fig 1). O`hia exhibits pronounced intraspecific variation: individuals differ from each other. O`hia grows over wide range of environments, from low elevations along the ocean right up the sides of the volcanoes, and takes on many different growth forms, from shrubs to trees. Substantial areas of o`hia trees on the Big Island are dying, attributed to two exotic fungal species of the genus Ceratocystis (Asner et al., 2018).

Figure 1. O’hia, Metrosideros polymorpha. Public domain image from Wikipedia. 

The Biology. Individuals from distinct populations may differ because the populations differ genetically, or because the environments differ, or, and this is more realistic, both. Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of one genotype to produce more than one phenotype when exposed to different environments. Environmental differences are inevitable when populations are from different geographic areas. Thus, in population comparisons, genetic and environmental differences are confounded. A common garden experiment is a crucial genetic experiment to separate variation in phenotypes, P, among populations into causal genetic or environmental components.

If you recall from your genetics course,

where G stands for genetic (alleles) differences among individuals and E stands for environmental differences among individuals. In brief, the common garden experiment begins with individuals from the different populations are brought to the same location to control environmental differences. If the individuals sampled from the populations continue to differ despite the common environment, then the original differences between the populations must have a genetic basis, although the actual genetic scenario may be complicated (the short answer is that if “genotype by environment interaction exists, then results from a common garden experiment cannot be generalized back to the natural populations/locations — this will make more sense when we talk about two-way ANOVA). For more about common garden experiments, see de Villemereuil et al (2016). Nuismer and Gandon (2008) discuss statistical aspects of the common garden approach to studying local adaptation of populations and the more powerful “reciprocal translocation” experimental design.

Managing data for linear models

First, your data must be stacked in the worksheet. That means one column is for group labels (independent variable), the other column is for the response (dependent) variable.

If you have not already downloaded the data set, ohia.ch12, do so now. Scroll down this page or click here to get the R code.

Confirm that the worksheet is stacked. If it is not, then you would rearrange your data set using Rcmdr: Data → Active data set → Stack variables in data set…

The data set contains one factor, “Site” with three levels (M-1, 2, 3). M stands for Maui, and collection sites were noted in Figure 2 of Corn and Hiesey (1973). Once the dataset is in Rcmdr, click on View to see the data (Fig 2). There are two response variables, Height (shown in red below) and Width (shown in blue below).

Figure 2. The o`hia dataset as viewed in R Commander.

The data are from Table 5 of Corn and Hiesey 1973.  (I simulated data based on their mean/SD reported in Table 5). This was a very cool experiment: they collected o`hia  seeds from three elevations on Maui, then grew the seeds in a common garden in Honolulu. Thus, the researchers controlled the environment; what varied, then were the genotypes.

As always, you should look at the data. Box plots are good to compare central tendency (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Box plots of growth responses of o`hia seedlings collected from three Maui sites, M-1 (elevation 750 ft), M-2 (elevation 1100 ft), and M-3 (elevation 6600 ft). Data adapted from Table 5 of Corn and Hiersey 1973.

R code to make Figure 4 plots

par(mfrow=c(1,2))
Boxplot(Height ~ Site, data = ohia, id = list(method = "y"))
Boxplot(Width ~ Site, data = ohia, id = list(method = "y"))

This dataset would typically be described as a one-way ANOVA problem. There was one treatment variable (population source) with three levels (M-1, M-2, M-3). From Rcmdr we select the one-way ANOVA: Statistics → Means → One-way ANOVA… and after selecting the Groups (from the Site variable) and the Response variable (eg, Height), we have

AnovaModel.1 <- aov(Height ~ Site, data = ohia.ch12)
summary(AnovaModel.1)
           Df Sum Sq   Mean Sq  F value          Pr(>F) 
Site        2   4070    2034.8    22.63 0.000000131 ***
Residuals  47   4227      89.9 
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Let us proceed to test the null hypothesis (what was it???) using instead the lm() function. Four steps in all.

Step 1. Rcmdr: Statistics → Fit models → Linear model … (Fig 4).

Figure 4. R Commander, select to fit a Linear model.

Step 2. The pop up menu below (Fig 5) follows.

First, What is our response (dependent) variable? What is our predictor (independent) variable? We then input our model. In this case, with only the one predictor variable, Sites, our model formula is simple to enter (Fig 5): Height ~ Site.

Figure 5. Input linear model formula, Height ~ Site.

Step 3. Click OK to carry out the command.

Here is the R output and the statistical results from the application of the linear model.

LinearModel.1 <- lm(Height ~ Site, data=ohia.ch12) 
summary(LinearModel.1)

Call:
lm(formula = Height ~ Site, data = ohia.ch12)

Residuals:
    Min     1Q   Median     3Q     Max 
-18.808 -4.761   -1.755  4.758  29.257

Coefficients:
             Estimate  Std. Error  t value      Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept)    15.314       2.121    7.222 0.00000000377 ***
Site[T.M-2]    19.261       2.999    6.423 0.00000006153 ***
Site[T.M-3]     2.924       3.673    0.796          0.43    
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Residual standard error: 9.483 on 47 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared:  0.4905,	Adjusted R-squared:  0.4688 
F-statistic: 22.63 on 2 and 47 DF,  p-value: 0.0000001311

End R output

The linear model has produced a series of estimates of coefficients for the linear model, statistical tests of the significance of each component of the model, and the coefficient of determination, R², which is a descriptive statistic of how well model fits the data. Instead of our single factor variable for Source Population like in ANOVA we have a series of what are called dummy variables or contrasts between the populations. Thus, there is a coefficient for the difference between M-1 and M-2. “Site[T.M-2]” in the output, between M-1 and M-3, and between M-2 and M-3.

It also produced our first statistic that assesses how well the model fits the data called the coefficient of determination, R². An of of 1.0 would indicate that all variation in the data set can be explained by the predictor variable(s) in the model with no residual error remaining. Our value of 49% indicates that nearly 50% of the variation in height of the seedlings grown under common environments are due to the source population (= genetics).

Step 4. But we are not quite there — we want the traditional ANOVA results (recall the ANOVA table).

To get the ANOVA Table we have to ask Rcmdr (and therefore R) to give us this. Select

Rcmdr: Models → Hypothesis tests → ANOVA table … (Fig 6).

Figure 6. To retrieve an ANOVA table, select Models, Hypothesis tests, then ANOVA table…

Here’s the type of tests for the ANOVA table, select the default (Fig 7).

Figure 7. Options for types of tests.

Now, in the future when we work with more complicated experimental designs, we will also need to tell R how to conduct the test. For now, we will accept the default Type II type of test and ignore sandwich estimators. You should confirm that for a one-way ANOVA, Type I and Type II choices give you the same results.

The reason they do is because there is only one factor — when there are more than one factors, and if one or both of the factors are random effects, then Type I, II, and III will give you different answers. We will discuss this more as needed, but see the note below about default choices.

By default, Rcmdr makes Type II. In most of the situations we will find ourselves this semester, this is the correct choice.

Below is the output from the ANOVA table request. Confirm that the information is identical to the output from the call to aov() function.

Anova(LinearModel.1, type = "II")
Anova Table (Type II tests)
Response: Height
          Sum Sq  Df   F value        Pr(>F) 
Site      4069.7   2    22.626  0.0000001311 ***
Residuals 4226.9  47 
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

And the other stuff we got from the linear model command? Ignore for now but make note that this is a hint that regression and ANOVA are special cases of the same model, the linear model.

We do have some more work to do with ANOVA, but this is a good start.

Why use the linear model approach?

Chief among the reasons to use the lm() approach is to emphasize that a model approach is in use. One purpose of developing a model is to provide a formula to predict new values. Prediction from linear models is more fully developed in Chapter 17 and Chapter 18, but for now, we introduce the predict() function with our O`hia example.

myModel <- predict(LinearModel.1, interval = "confidence")
head(myModel, 3)    #print out first 3 rows
#Add the output to the data set
ohiaPred <- data.frame(ohia,myModel)
with(ohiaPred, tapply(fit, list(Site), mean, na.rm = TRUE))   #print out predicted values for the three sites

Output from R

myModel <- predict(LinearModel.1, interval = "confidence")
head(myModel, 3)
       fit      lwr      upr
1 15.31374 11.04775 19.57974
2 15.31374 11.04775 19.57974
3 15.31374 11.04775 19.57974
with(myModel, tapply(fit, list(Site), mean, na.rm = TRUE))
     M-1      M-2      M-3
15.31374 34.57474 18.23796

Questions

1. Revisit ANOVA problems in homework and questions from early parts of this chapter and apply lm() followed by Hypothesis testing (Rcmdr: Models → Hypothesis tests → ANOVA table) approach instead of one-way ANOVA command. Compare results using lm() to results from One-way ANOVA and other ANOVA problems.

Quiz Chapter 12.7

Many tests one model

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data set and R code used in this page

Corn and Hiesey (1973)

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings

12.6 – ANOVA posthoc tests

Introduction

Tests of the null hypothesis in a one-way ANOVA yields one answer: either you reject the null, or you do not reject the null hypothesis — with the usual caveats about “provisionally reject,” etc (Ch8.2 and Ch8.3). But while there was only one factor (population, drug treatment, etc) in a one-way ANOVA, there are usually many treatments (eg, multiple levels, four different populations, three doses of a drug plus a placebo).

ANOVA plus posthoc tests solves the multiple comparison problem we discussed: you still get your tests of all group differences, but with adjustments to the procedures so that these tests are conducted without suffering the increase in Type I error = the multiple comparison problem. If the null hypothesis is rejected, you may then proceed to posthoc tests among the groups to identify differences without increasing the chance of rejecting the null hypothesis too often.

Consider the following example of four populations scored for some outcome, sim.ch12 (scroll down the page, or click here to get the R code).

Bring the data frame, sim.ch12, into current memory in Rcmdr by selecting the data set.  Next, run the one-way ANOVA.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Means → One-way ANOVA…

which brings up the following menu (Fig 1).

Figure 1. One-way ANOVA menu in R Commander.

Notice that Rcmdr menu correctly identifies the Factor variable, which contains text labels for each group, and the Response variable, which contains the numerical observations.

newName <- as.factor(oldVariable)

If your data set contains more variables, then you would need to sort through these and select the correct model (Fig 1).

To get the default Tukey posthoc tests simply check the Pairwise comparisons box and then click OK.

For a test of the null that four groups have the same mean, a publishable ANOVA table would look like Table 1.

Table 1. The ANOVA table

pvalue(1.108357e-15, accuracy=0.0001, decimal.mark = ".", add_p=TRUE)

[1] "p<0.0001"

Here’s the R output for ANOVA

AnovaModel.1 <- aov(Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12)
summary(AnovaModel.1)
          Df  Sum Sq Mean Sq  F value     Pr(>F) 
Label      3  389627  129876    76.44   1.11e-15 ***
Residuals 36   61167    1699 
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

with(sim.Ch12, numSummary(Values, groups = Label, statistics = c("mean", "sd")))
      mean       sd data:n
Pop1 150.3 35.66838 10
Pop2  99.0 43.25634 10
Pop3 130.9 42.36469 10
Pop4 350.7 43.10723 10

End of R output.

When to conduct posthoc tests.

Recall that all we can say is that a difference has been found and we reject the null hypothesis. However, we do not know if group 1 = group 2, but both are different from group 3, or some other combination. So we may want additional tools. We can conduct posthoc tests (also called multiple comparisons tests).

Once a difference has been detected (F test statistic > F critical value, therefore P < 0.05), then posteriori tests, also called unplanned comparisons, can be used to tell which means differ.

There are also cases for which some comparisons were planned ahead of time and these are called a priori or planned comparisons; even though you conduct the tests after the ANOVA, you were always interested in particular comparisons. This is an important distinction: planned comparisons are more powerful, more aligned with what we understand to be the scientific method. An argument — transparency, avoids Type II errors — can be made that if comparisons are planned, and only a few tests are conducted, no correction for “multiple tests” is warranted. Moreover, it is defensible to report all p-values from a hundred tests without correction, acknowledging that if all null hypotheses were “true,” then 5 would be expected to be less than Type I of 5% by chance alone.

Posthoc tests.

ANOVA was introduced by Fisher in 1918, and, as readers know by know, returns whether or not significant differences are present among groups, but no which groups may differ.  Unsurprisingly, given the needs of researchers to compare groups, many tests were developed since Fisher’s ANOVA to conduct multiple comparison tests. Collectively, they are often referred to as posthoc tests (Ruxton and Beauchamp 2008).

There are many different flavors of these tests, and R offers several, but I will hold you responsible only for three such comparisons: Tukey’s, Dunnett’s, and Bonferroni (Dunn). These named tests are among the common ones (Table 2, Midway et al 2020), but you should be aware that the problem of multiple comparisons and inflated error rates has received quite a lot of recent attention because the size of data sets has increased in many fields, eg, genome wide-association studies in genetics or data mining in economics or business analytics. A related topic then is the issue of “false positives.” New approaches include Holm-Bonferroni. There are others — it is a regular “cottage industry” in applied statistics to a problem that, while recognized, has not achieved a universal agreed solution. Best we can do is be aware and deal with it and know that the problem is one mostly of big data (eg, microarray and other high-throughput approaches). Equally important, some of these tests are better than others, and some may not be consistent with best practices.

Let’s take a look at these procedures.

Performing multiple comparisons and the one-way ANOVA

a. Tukey’s: “honestly (wholly) significant difference test”

Tests versus where A and B can be any pairwise combination of two means you wish to compare. Thus, this is likely a case of unplanned comparisons. There are comparisons.

where

and n is the harmonic mean of the sample sizes of the two groups being compared. If the sample sizes are equal, then the simple arithmetic mean is the same as the harmonic mean.

• The significance level is the probability of encountering at least one Type I error (probability of rejecting H_o when it is true). This is called the experimentwise (familywise) error rate whereas before we talked about the comparisonwise (individual) error rate.

Three options to get the posthoc test Tukey:

(1) TukeyHSD() function is included in base statistics.

(2) use a function called mcp or in Rcmdr, Tukey is the default option in the one-way ANOVA command. The function mcp is part of the multcomp package, which is included in the Rcmdr package.

(3) specify method = "HSD" in PostHocTest function in DescTools package.

In brief, run the anova first, save the output to an object, then call an appropriate command from a package to conduct the posthoc test.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Means → One-way ANOVA
Check “Pairwise comparisons of means” to get the Tukey’s HSD test (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Screenshot Rcmdr menu: Select Tukey posthoc tests with the one-way ANOVA.

Tukey’s honestly significant difference is available without installing additional packages. Simply run

AnovaModel.1 <- aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12)
TukeyHSD(AnovaModel.1)

and R output returned is

Tukey multiple comparisons of means
95% family-wise confidence level

Fit: aov(formula = Value ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12)

$Label
           diff        lwr        upr     p adj
Pop2-Pop1 -51.3 -100.94731  -1.652695 0.0406116
Pop3-Pop1 -19.4  -69.04731  30.247305 0.7200796
Pop4-Pop1 200.4  150.75269 250.047305 0.0000000
Pop3-Pop2 31.9   -17.74731  81.547305 0.3232616
Pop4-Pop2 251.7  202.05269 301.347305 0.0000000
Pop4-Pop3 219.8  170.15269 269.447305 0.0000000

Installation of R Commander also includes installation of the multcomp package, which contains several post hoc tests, including Tukey and Dunnett’s tests.

R output follows. There’s a lot, but much of it is repeat information. Take your time, here we go.

.Pairs <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = "Tukey"))
summary(.Pairs) # pairwise tests
     Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses
Multiple Comparisons of Means: Tukey Contrasts
 Fit: aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12) 

 Linear Hypotheses: 
                  Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)     
 Pop2 - Pop1 == 0   -51.30      18.43  -2.783   0.0405 *   
 Pop3 - Pop1 == 0   -19.40      18.43  -1.052   0.7201     
 Pop4 - Pop1 == 0   200.40      18.43  10.871   <0.001 *** 
 Pop3 - Pop2 == 0    31.90      18.43   1.730   0.3233     
 Pop4 - Pop2 == 0   251.70      18.43  13.654   <0.001 *** 
 Pop4 - Pop3 == 0   219.80      18.43  11.924   <0.001 *** 
 --- 
 Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 
 (Adjusted p values reported -- single-step method) 

 confint(.Pairs) # confidence intervals 
      Simultaneous Confidence Intervals 

 Multiple Comparisons of Means: Tukey Contrasts 

 Fit: aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12) 

 Quantile = 2.6927 
 95% family-wise confidence level 
   
 Linear Hypotheses: 
                  Estimate  lwr       upr       
 Pop2 - Pop1 == 0  -51.3000 -100.9382   -1.6618 
 Pop3 - Pop1 == 0  -19.4000  -69.0382   30.2382 
 Pop4 - Pop1 == 0  200.4000  150.7618  250.0382 
 Pop3 - Pop2 == 0   31.9000  -17.7382   81.5382 
 Pop4 - Pop2 == 0  251.7000  202.0618  301.3382 
 Pop4 - Pop3 == 0  219.8000  170.1618  269.4382 

Figure 3. Plot of confidence intervals of Tukey HSD.

R Commander includes a default 95% CI plot (Fig 3). From this graph, you can quickly identify the pairwise comparisons for which 0 (zero, dotted vertical line) is included in the interval, ie, there is no difference between the means (eg, Pop1 is different from Pop4, but Pop1 is not different from Pop3).

b. Dunnett’s Test for comparisons against a control group

• There are situations where we might want to compare our experimental Populations to one control Population or group. Thus, this is likely a case of planned comparisons.
• This is common in medical research where there is a placebo (control pill with no drug) or sham operations (operations where everything but the critical operation is done).
• This is also a common research design in ecological or agricultural research where some animal or plant populations are exposed to an environmental factor (eg, fertilizer, pesticide, pollutant, competitors, herbivores) and other animal or plant populations are not exposed to these environmental factor.
• The difference in the statistical procedure for analyzing this type of research design is that the experimental groups may only be compared to the control group.
• This results in fewer comparisons.
• The formula is the same as for the Tukey’s Multiple Comparison test, except for the calculation of the SE.

Standard Error is changed by multiplying the MS_Error by 2.

And n is the harmonic mean of the sample sizes of the two groups being compared.

where

R Commander doesn’t provide a simple way to get Dunnett, but we can get it simply enough if we are willing to write some script. Fortunately (OK, by design!), Rcmdr prints commands.

Look at the Output window from the one-way ANOVA with pairwise comparisons: it provides clues as to how we can modify the mcp command (mcp stands for multiple comparisons).

First, I had run the one-way ANOVA command and noted the model (AnovaModel.3). Second, I wrote the following script, modified from above.

Pairs <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = c("Pop2 - Pop1 = 0", "Pop3 - Pop1 = 0", "Pop4 - Pop1 = 0")))

where Label was my name for the Factor variable. Note that I specified the comparisons I wanted R to make. When I submit the script, nothing shows up in the Output window because the results are stored in  Pairs.

Next, I then need to ask R to provide confidence intervals

confint(Pairs)

R output window

Pairs <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = c("Pop2 - Pop1 = 0", "Pop3 - Pop1 = 0", "Pop4 - Pop1 = 0"))) 
confint(Pairs) 

Simultaneous Confidence Intervals 

 Multiple Comparisons of Means: User-defined Contrasts 

 Fit: aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12) 

 Estimated Quantile = 2.4524 
 95% family-wise confidence level 

 Linear Hypotheses: 
  ...... lwr ....... upr 
 Pop2 - Pop1 == 0  .. -51.3000  . -96.5080  ... -6.0920 
 Pop3 - Pop1 == 0  .. -19.4000  . -64.6080  ... 25.8080 
 Pop4 - Pop1 == 0  .. 200.4000  . 155.1920  .. 245.6080

Look for intervals that include zero, therefore, the group does not differ from the Control group (Pop1). How many groups differed from the Control group?

Alternatively, I may write

Tryme <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = "Dunnett"))
confint(Tryme)

It’s the same — in fact, the default mcp test is Dunnett’s test.

Tryme <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = "Dunnett")) 
confint(Tryme) 

Simultaneous Confidence Intervals 

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Dunnett Contrasts 

Fit: aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12) 

Estimated Quantile = 2.4514 
95% family-wise confidence level 

Linear Hypotheses: 
Estimate lwr upr 
Pop2 - Pop1 == 0 -51.3000 -96.4895 -6.1105 
Pop3 - Pop1 == 0 -19.4000 -64.5895 25.7895 
Pop4 - Pop1 == 0 200.4000 155.2105 245.5895                                   

Level 
[1] Pop1 Pop2 Pop3 Pop4
Levels: Pop1 Pop2 Pop3 Pop4

Level <- relevel(Level, ref = "Pop2"); Level
[1] Pop1 Pop2 Pop3 Pop4
Levels: Pop2 Pop1 Pop3 Pop4

is.factor(Level)
[1] TRUE

Level <- as.factor(Level)

Level <- factor(Level, levels = c("Pop2", "Pop4", "Pop1", "Pop3")); Level

[1] Pop1 Pop2 Pop3 Pop4
Levels: Pop2 Pop4 Pop1 Pop3

c. Bonferroni t

The Bonferroni t test is a popular tool for conducting multiple comparisons. This, too, is consistent with an unplanned comparisons approach. The rationale for this particular test is that the MS_error is a good estimate of the pooled variances for all groups in the ANOVA.

and DF = N – k.

Thus, for k = 4 groups,

Here’s a simplified version if you prefer to get all pairwise tests

Use this information then to determine how many total comparisons will be made, then if necessary, use to adjust Type I error rate for one test (the exerimentwise error rate).

For our example, is 0.05/6 = 0.00833. Thus, for a difference between two means to be statistically significant, the P-value must be less than 0.00833.

For Bonferroni, we will use the following script.

1. Set up one-way ANOVA model (ours has been saved as AnovaModel.1),
2. Collect all pairwise comparisons with the mcp(~"Tukey") stored in a vector (I called mine Whynot),
3. and finally, get the Bonferroni adjusted test of the comparisons with the summary command, but addtest = adjusted("bonferroni").

It’s a bit much, but we end up with a very nice output to work with.

Whynot <- glht(AnovaModel.1, linfct = mcp(Label = "Tukey")) 
summary(Whynot, test = adjusted("bonferroni")) 

 Simultaneous Tests for General Linear Hypotheses

Multiple Comparisons of Means: Tukey Contrasts

Fit: aov(formula = Values ~ Label, data = sim.Ch12)

Linear Hypotheses:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) 
Pop2 - Pop1 == 0 -51.30 18.43 -2.783 0.0512 . 
Pop3 - Pop1 == 0 -19.40 18.43 -1.052 1.0000 
Pop4 - Pop1 == 0 200.40 18.43 10.871 3.82e-12 ***
Pop3 - Pop2 == 0 31.90 18.43 1.730 0.5527 
Pop4 - Pop2 == 0 251.70 18.43 13.654 5.33e-15 ***
Pop4 - Pop3 == 0 219.80 18.43 11.924 2.77e-13 ***
  --- 
 Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 
 (Adjusted p values reported -- bonferroni method)        

Questions

1. Be able to define and contrast experiment-wise and family-wise error rates.
2. Read and interpret R output
   1. Refer back to the Tukey HSD output. Among the four populations, which pairwise groups were considered “statistically significant” following use of the Tukey HSD?
   2. Refer back to the Dunnett’s output. Among the four populations, which population was taken as the control group for comparison?
   3. Refer back to the Dunnett’s output. Which pairwise groups were considered “statistically significant” from the control group?
   4. Refer back to the Bonferroni output. Among the four populations, which pairwise groups were considered “statistically significant” following use of the Bonferroni correction?
   5. Compare and contrast interpretation of results for posthoc comparisons among the four populations based on the three different posthoc methods
3. Be able to distinguish when Tukey HSD and Dunnet’s post hoc tests are appropriate.
4. Some microarray researchers object to use of Bonferroni correction because it is too “conservative.” In the context of statistical testing, what errors are the researchers talking about when they say the correction is “conservative.”

Quiz Chapter 12.6

ANOVA posthoc tests

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data set used in this page

R code # copy the data from the full table to clipboard and paste between the double quotes in text=””)

sim.ch12 <- read.table(header=TRUE, sep=",",text="")

#check the dataframe
head(sim.ch12)

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings

12.4 – ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”

Introduction

By now you should be able to run a one-way ANOVA using R (and R Commander) with ease. As a reminder, You should also be aware that, if you need to, you could use spreadsheet software like Microsoft Excel or LibreOffice Calc to run one way ANOVA on a small data set. Still, there are times when you may need to run a one-way ANOVA on a small data set, and doing so by hand calculator may be just as convenient. What are your available options?

Following the formulas I have given would be one way to calculate ANOVA by hand, but it would be tedious and subject to error. Instead of working with the standard formulas, calculator shortcuts can be derived with a little algebra and this is where I want to draw your attention now. This technique will come in handy in lab classes or other scenarios where you collect some data among a set number of groups and calculate means and standard deviations. The purpose of this posting is to show you how to obtain the necessary statistics to calculate a one-way ANOVA from the available descriptive statistics: means, standard deviations, and sample sizes. In other words, these are the sufficient statistics for one-way ANOVA.

As you recall, a one-way ANOVA yields a single F test of the null hypothesis that all group means are equal. To calculate the F test, you need

• Mean Square Between Groups,
• Mean Squares Within Groups or Error,

F is then calculated as

with degrees of freedom k – 1 for the numerator and N – 1 for the denominator. can also appear as

We can calculate  as

where k is the number of i ^th groups, n_i is the sample size of the ith group,  refers to the overall mean for all of the  sample means.

Next, for the Error Mean Square, , all we need is the average of the sample variances (the square of the sample standard deviation, s).

ANOVA from sufficient statistics

Consider an example data set (Table 1) for which only summary statistics are available (mean and standard deviation, sd). The data set is for life span(days) for several inbred strains of laboratory mice from a study (. Sample size for each group was seven mice.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics female life span (days) for ten different inbred strains of mice (Mus domesticus).

Data from Yuan et al (2021; https://phenome.jax.org).

Spreadsheet calculations.

You have several options at this point, ranging from using your calculator and the formulas above (don’t forget to square the standard deviation to get the variances!), or you could use Microsoft Excel or LibreOffice Calc and enter the necessary formulas by hand (Table 2). You’ll also find many online calculators for one-way ANOVA by sufficient statistics (eg, https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=43).

Table 2. Spreadsheet with formulas for calculating one-way ANOVA from means and standard deviations from statistics presented in Table 1.

For this example, you should get the following

MSB = 219899.5
MSE = 31634.1
F = 6.951
P-value = 4.45E-09

But, R can do it better.

Here’s how. Install the HH package (or RcmdrPlugin.HH for use in Rcmdr) and call the ?aovSufficient function.

Step 1. Install the HH package from a CRAN mirror, eg, cloud.r-project.org, in the usual way.

chooseCRANmirror()
install.packages("HH") 
library(HH)

Step 2. Enter the data. Do this in the usual way (eg, from a text file), or enter directly using the read.table command as follows.

MouseData <- read.table(header=TRUE, sep = ",", text= "
Strain, n.size, average, stdev 
129S1, 32, 787.4, 159.16
A.J, 32, 630.7, 130.20
BALB.c, 32, 734.4, 154.43
BUB.BnJ, 24, 611.3, 218.34
C3H.HeJ, 29, 724.1, 131.48
C57BL.6J, 29, 855.7, 185.34
CBA.J, 30, 622.9, 181.95
FVB.NJ, 26, 750.3, 230.11
P.J, 32, 676.0, 178.82
SWR.J, 31, 831.9, 181.31")
#Check import
head(MouseData)

End of R input

I know, a little hard to read, but from the MouseData to the end bracket ") before the comment line #Check import, that’s all one command.

Of course, you could copy the data and import the data from your computer’s clipboard in Rcmdr: Data → Import data → from text file, clipboard, or URL… 

Once the data set is loaded, proceed to Step 3.

Step 3. In our example, sample size was included for each group. Skip to step 4. If, however, the table lacked the sample size information, you can always add a new variable. For example, if we needed to add sample size to the data frame, we would use the repeat element function, rep().

MouseData$n <- rep(7, 10)

If you check the View data set button in Rcmdr, you will see that the command in Step 3 has added a new variable “n” for each of the eleven rows. The function rep() stands for “replicate elements in vectors” and what it did here was enter a value of 7 for each of the ten rows in the data set. Again, this step is not necessary for this example because sample size is already part of the data frame. Proceed to step 4.

Step 4. Run the one way ANOVA using the sufficient statistics and the HH function aovSufficient

MouseData.aov <- aovSufficient(average ~ Strain, data=MouseData)

Step 5. Get the ANOVA table

summary(MouseData.aov)

Here’s the R output

           Df  Sum Sq Mean Sq F value   Pr(>F) 
Strain      9 1977732  219748   7.123 2.54e-09 ***
Residuals 287 8853743   30849 
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

End R output

To explore other features of the package, type ?aovSufficient at the R prompt (like all R functions, extensive help is generally available for each function in a package).

Meta-analysis and sufficient statistics.

Meta-analysis (see Chapter 20.15 — Meta-analysis), can be performed using sufficient statistics from different tests. Combining sufficient statistics allows for a more precise overall estimate by effectively merging the information from multiple studies, which can be especially useful when individual studies have small sample sizes or lack a unified outcome measure. Common methods include creating summary effect sizes like the standardized mean difference or using p-value combination methods, while ensuring the underlying statistical assumptions are met through goodness-of-fit tests.

Fisher’s method combines the p-values from multiple independent studies into a single overall p-value to test a joint null hypothesis. The method’s test statistic is calculated as the sum of the negative log-transformed p-values. P-values from number of tests are combined; each p-value, , contributes to a variable, , with degrees of freedom. The chi-square distribution is used to evaluate the significance of the Fisher’s method test statistic.

Fisher’s method is available in several R packages (eg,poolr package); here, we’ll just create a simple R code.

Limitations: Methods that only use p-values or test statistics may not adequately address the effects of heterogeneity and potential publication bias among studies. Because many older studies do not report effect sizes and confidence intervals, using test statistics or p-values is often the only available method to combine their results.

Example.

One hypothesis about longevity is that the greater the genetic diversity can lead to longer life. The mice in Table 1 were all from inbred mouse strains. By definition, genetic diversity is restricted in inbred mice, compared to outbred strains. Jackson Labs produced a “Diverse Outbred” line of mice, and a few individuals have lived nearly five years, well past the typical 1 – 2 year lifespan of mice (Cohen 2017, Mullis et al 2025). Thus, a natural comparison is to ask: is there a difference in average lifespan between the DO and inbred mouse strains? We’ll run a series of one-sample t-tests against the mean lifespan for the diverse outbred stock of mice, save the p-values, and apply Fisher’s method. While not strictly a meta-analysis, which would draw from multiple studies, this example outlines the basic steps to take given a series of hypothesis of the same kind.

do_avg= 794.5
# dataset MouseData
tsum.test(average[1], stdev[1], n.size[1], mu=do_avg)

t = -0.25235, df = 31, p-value = 0.8024

p_values <- numeric(length(average))

for (i in 1:length(average)) {
     suppressWarnings({
      test_result <- tsum.test(
      mean.x = average[i],
      s.x = stdev[i],
      n.x = n.size[i],
      mu = do_avg
      )
      p_values[i] <- test_result$p.value
      })
     }

print(p_values)

The p-values from all ten tests are sorted by strain in Table 2.

Table 2. Results of one sample t-tests inbred strains (Table 1) compared to average lifespan of the J:DO diversity outbred mouse strain from Jackson labs

R-code for Fisher’s method

my_pValues <- c(0.08623, 1.601e-05, 0.3368, 0.0007307, 0.2598)
X_squared <- -2 * sum(log(my_pValues),base = exp(1))
myDf <- 2 * length(my_pValues)
combinedP <- pchisq(X_squared, myDf, lower.tail = FALSE)
result_table <- as.data.frame(rbind(X_squared, myDf, combinedP))
rownames(result_table) <- c("chi_sqr", "df", "P-value")
colnames(result_table) <- c("Value")
print(result_table)

and the R output

                Value
chi_sqr 44.7017431931
     df 16.0000000000
P-value 0.0001541831

With the small p-value, we would reject the null hypothesis of no difference in lifespan among the inbred strains compared to the genetically diverse DO strain of mice.

Limitations of ANOVA from sufficient statistics.

This was pretty easy, so it is worth asking — Why go through the bother of analyzing the raw data, why not just go to the summary statistics and run the calculator formula? First, the chief reason against the calculator formula and use of only sufficient statistics loses information about the individual values and therefore you have no access to the residuals. The residual of an observation is the difference between the original observation and the model prediction. The residuals are important for determining whether the model fits the data well and are, therefore, part of the toolkit that statisticians need to do proper data analysis. We will spend considerable time looking at residual patterns and it is an important aspect of doing statistics correctly.

Secondly, while it is possible to extend this approach to more complicated ANOVA problems like the two-way ANOVA (Cohen 2002), the statistical significance of the interaction term(s) calculated in this way are only approximate (the main effects are OK to interpret). Thus, ANOVA from sufficient statistics has its place when all you have is access to descriptive statistics, but its use is limited and not at all the preferred option for data analysis when the original, raw observations are in hand.

Questions

1. Calculate the one-way ANOVA for body weight of 47 female (F) and 97 male (M) cats (kilograms, dataset cats in MASS R package) from the following summary statistics.

2. Bonus: Load the cats data set (package MASS, loaded with Rcmdr) and run a one-way ANOVA using the aov() function via Rcmdr. Are the ANOVA from sufficient statistics the same as results from the direct ANOVA calculation? If not, why not.

Quiz Chapter 12.4

ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings

12.3 – Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement

Introduction

Within discussions of one-way ANOVA models the distinction between two general classes of models needs to be made clear by the researcher. The distinction lies in how the levels of the factor are selected. If the researcher selects the levels, then the model is a Fixed Effects Model, also called a Model I ANOVA. On the other hand, if the levels of the factor were selected by random sampling from all possible levels of the factor, then the model is a Random Effects Model, also called a Model II ANOVA. This page is about such models and I’ll introduce the intraclass correlation coefficient, abbreviated as ICC, as a way to illustrate applications of Model II ANOVA.

Here’s an example to help the distinction. Consider an experiment to see if over the counter painkillers are as good as prescription pain relievers at reducing numbers of migraines over a six week period. The researcher selects Tylenol^®, Advil^®, Bayer^® Aspirin, and Sumatriptan (Imitrex^®), the latter an example of a medicine only available by prescription. This is clearly an example of fixed effects; the researcher selected the particular medicines for use.

Random effects, in contrast, implies that the researcher draws up a list of all over the counter pain relievers and draws at random three medicines; the researcher would also randomly select from a list of all available prescription medicines.

Fixed effects are probably the more common experimental approaches. To be complete, there is a third class of ANOVA called a Mixed Model or Model III ANOVA, but this type of model only applies to multidimensional ANOVA (eg, two-way ANOVA or higher), and we reserve our discussion of the Model III until we discuss multidimensional ANOVA (Table 1).

Table 1. ANOVA models

Although the calculations for the one-way ANOVA under Model I or Model II are the same, the interpretation of the statistical significance is different between the two.

In Model I ANOVA, any statistical difference applies to the differences among the levels selected, but cannot be generalized back to the population. In contrast, statistical significance of the Factor variable in Model II ANOVA cannot be interpreted as specific differences among the levels of the treatment factor, but instead, apply to the population of levels of the factor. In short, Model I ANOVA results apply only to the study, whereas Model II ANOVA results may be interpreted as general effects, applicable to the population.

This distinction between fixed effects and random effects can be confusing, but it has broad implications for how we interpret our results in the short-term. This conceptual distinction between how the levels of the factor are selected also has general implications for our ability to acquire generalizable knowledge by meta-analysis techniques (Hunter and Schmidt 2000). Often we wish to generalize our results: we can do so only if the levels of the factor were randomly selected in the first place from all possible levels of the factor. In reality, this may not often be the case. It is not difficult to find examples in the published literature in which the experimental design is clearly fixed effects (ie, the researcher selected the treatment levels for a reason), and yet in the discussion of the statistical results, the researcher will lapse into generalizations.

Random Effects Models and agreement

Model II ANOVA is common in settings in which individuals are measured more than once. For example, in behavioral science or in sports science, subjects are typically measured for the response variable more than once over a course of several trials. Another common setting of Model II ANOVA is where more than one raters are judging an event or even a science project. In all of these cases what we are asking is about whether or not the subjects are consistent, in other words, we are asking about the precision of the instrument or measure.

In the assessment of learning by students, for example, different approaches may be tried and the instructor may wish to investigate whether the interventions can explain changes in test scores. To assess instrument validity — an item score from a grading rubric (Goertzen and Klaus 2023), tumor budding as biomarker for colorectal cancer (Bokhorst et al 2020) — agreement or concordance among two or more raters or judges (inter-rater reliability) needs to be established (same citations and references therein). For binomial data, we would be tempted to use the phi coefficient, Is it actually reliable Cohen’s kappa (two judges) or Fleiss Kappa (two or more judges) is a better tool. Phi coefficient and both assessment scores were introduced in Chapter 9.2.

For ratio scale data, agreement among scores of  two or more scores from judges There is an enormous number of articles on reliability measures in the social sciences and you should be aware of a classical paper on reliability by Shrout and Fleiss (1979) (see also McGraw and Wong, 1996). Both the ICC and the Pearson product moment correlation, r, which we will introduce in Chapter 16, are measures of strength of linear association between two ratio scale variables (Jinyuan et al 2016). But ICC is more appropriate for association between repeat measures of the same thing, eg, repeat measures of running speed or agreement between judges. In contrast, the product moment correlation can be used to describe association between any two variables, eg, between repeat measures of running speed, but also between say running speed and maximum jumping height. The concept of repeatability of individual behavior or other characteristics is also a common theme in genetics and so you should not be surprised to learn that the concept actually traces to RA Fisher and his invention of ANOVA. Just as in the case of the sociology literature, there are many papers on the use and interpretation of repeatability in the evolutionary biology literature (eg, Lessels and Boag 1987; Boake 1989; Falconer and Mackay 1996; Dohm 2002; Wolak et al 2012).

Agreement and repeatability are Model II (random effects) because the subjects, items, or raters being studied are treated as a random sample from a larger population rather than specific, fixed levels of interest. In reliability studies, subjects are not chosen for their specific characteristics but as representatives of the population variability. The goal is to infer whether a measurement tool works for any future subject or rater, not just the ones tested in the study. These factors are designed to estimate variance components and generalize results beyond the specific sample used. Put another way, the goal of Model II is often to estimate how much variance is due to differences between subjects versus within subjects (repeatability), which requires treating the subject effect as random.

There are many ways to analyze these kinds of data but a good way is to treat this problem as a one-way ANOVA with Random Effects. Thus, the Random Effects model permits the partitioning of the variation in the study into two portions: the amount that is due to differences among the subjects or judges or intervention versus the amount that is due to variation within the subjects themselves. The Factor is the Subjects and the levels of the factor are how ever many subjects are measured twice or more for the response variable.

If the subjects performance is repeatable, then the Mean Square Between (Among) Subjects, , component will be greater than the Mean Square Error component, , of the model. There are many measures of repeatability or reliability, but the intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC is one of the most common. The ICC may be calculated from the Mean Squares gathered from a Random Effects one-way ANOVA. ICC can take any value between zero and one.

where

and

B and W refers to the among group (between or among groups mean square) and the within group components of variation (error mean square), respectively, from the ANOVA, MS refers to the Mean Squares, and k is the number of repeat measures for each experimental unit. In this formulation k is assumed to be the same for each subject.

By example, when a collection of sprinters run a race, if they ran it again, would the outcome be the same, or at least predictable? If the race is run over and over again and the runners cross the finish lines at different times each race, then much of the variation in performance times will be due to race differences largely independent of any performance abilities of the runners themselves and the Mean Square Error term will be large and the Between subjects Mean Square will be small. In contrast, if the race order is preserved race after race: Jenny is 1st, Ellen is 2nd, Michael is third, and so on, race after race, then differences in performance are largely due to individual differences. In this case, the Between-subjects Mean Square will be large as will the ICC, whereas the Mean Square for Error will be small, and so will the ICC.

Can the intraclass correlation be negative?

In theory, no. Values for ICC range between zero and one. The familiar Pearson product moment correlation, Chapter 16, takes any value between -1 and +1. However, in practice, negative values for ICC will result if .

In other words, if the within group variability is greater than the among group variability, then negative ICC are possible. The question is whether negative estimates are ever biologically relevant or, simply result of limitations of the estimation procedure. Small ICC values and few repeats increases the risk of negative ICC estimates. Thus, a negative ICC would be “simply a(n) “unfortunate” estimate (Liljequist et al 2019). However, there may be situations in which negative ICC is more than unfortunate.  For example, repeatability, a quantitative genetics concept (Falconer and Mackay 1996), can be negative (Nakagawa and Schielzeth 2010).

Repeatability reflects the consistency of individual traits over time (or spatially, eg, scales on on a snake), is defined as the ratio of within individual differences and among individuals differences. Thus, within individual variance is attributed to general environmental effects, , whereas variance among individuals is both genetic and environmental. Scenarios for which repeated measures on the same individual may occur under environmental conditions, termed specific environmental effects or by Falconer and Mackay (1996), that negatively affect performance are not hard to imagine — it remains to be determined how common these conditions are and whether or not estimates of repeatability are negative.

ICC Example

I extracted 15 data points from a figure about nitrogen metabolism in kidney patients following treatment with antibiotics (Figure 1, Mitch et al 1977). I used a web application called WebPlot Digitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/), but you can also accomplish this task within R via the digitize package. I was concerned about how steady my hand was using my laptop’s small touch screen, a problem that very much can be answered by thinking statistically, and taking advantage of the ICC. So, rather than taking just one estimate of each point I repeated the protocol for extracting the points from the figure three times generating a total of three points for each of the 15 data points or 45 points in all. How consistent was I?

Let’s look at the results just for three points, #1, 2, and 3.

In the R script window enter

points = c(1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3)

Change points to character so that the ANOVA command will treat the numbers as factor levels.

points = as.character(points)
extracts = c(2.0478, 12.2555, 16.0489, 2.0478, 11.9637, 16.0489, 2.0478, 12.2555, 16.0489)

Make a data frame, assign to an object, eg, “digitizer”

digitizer = data.frame(points, extracts)

The dataset “digitizer” should now be attached and available to you within Rcmdr. Select digitizer data set and proceed with the one-way ANOVA.

Output from oneway ANOVA command

Model.1 <- aov(extracts ~ points, data=digitizer)

 summary(Model.1)
            Df    Sum Sq   Mean Sq  F value     Pr(>F)    
points       2 313.38895 156.69448 16562.49 5.9395e-12 ***
Residuals    6   0.05676   0.00946                        
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

numSummary(extracts , groups = points, 
+   statistics=c("mean", "sd"))
         mean           sd data:n
1  2.04780000 0.0000000000      3
2 12.15823333 0.1684708085      3
3 16.04890000 0.0000000000      3

End R output. We need to calculate the ICC

I’d say that’s pretty repeatable and highly precise measurement!

But is it accurate? You should be able to disentangle accuracy from precision based on our previous discussion (Chapter 3.5), but now in the context of a practical way to quantify precision.

ICC calculations in R

We could continue to calculate the ICC by hand, but better to have a function. Here’s a crack at the function to calculate ICC along with a 95% confidence interval.

myICC <- function(m, k, dfN, dfD) {
 testMe <- anova(m) 
 MSB <- testMe$"Mean Sq"[1]
 MSE <- testMe$"Mean Sq"[2]
 varB <- MSB - MSE/k
 ICC <- varB/(varB+MSE)
 fval <- qf(c(.025), df1=dfN, df2=dfD, lower.tail=TRUE)
 CI = (k*MSE*fval)/(MSB+MSE*(k-1)*fval)
 LCIR = ICC-CI
 UCIR = ICC+CI
 myList = c(ICC, LCIR, UCIR)
 return(myList)
}

The user supplies the ANOVA model object (eg, Model.1 from our example), k, which is the number of repeats per unit, and degrees of freedom for the among groups comparison (2 in this example), and the error mean square (6 in this case). Our example, run the function

m2ICC = myICC(Model.1, 3, 2,6); m2ICC

and R returns

[1] 0.9999396 0.9999350 0.9999442

with the ICC reported first, 0.9999396, followed by the lower limit (0.9999350) and the upper limit (0.9999442) of the 95% confidence interval.

Instead of writing your own function, several R packages can calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its variants. These packages include: irr, psy, psych, and rptR.  For complex experiments involving multiple predictor variables, these packages are helpful for obtaining the correct ICC calculation (cf Shrout and Fleiss 1979; McGraw and Wong 1996). For the one-way ANOVA it is easier to just extract the information you need from the ANOVA table and run the calculation directly. We do so for a couple of examples.

Example: Are marathon runners consistent more consistent than my commute times?

Figure 1.Honolulu Marathon 2024 participant. Image credit: Pdubs.94, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), via Wikipedia.

A marathon is 26 miles, 385 yards (42.195 kilometers) long (World Athletics.org). And yet, tens of thousands of people choose to run in these events. For many, running a marathon is a one-off, the culmination of a personal fitness goal. For others, it’s a passion and a few are simply extraordinary, elite runners who can complete the courses in 2 to 3 hours (Table 3). That’s about 12.5 miles per hour. For comparison, my 20 mile commute on the H1 freeway on Oahu typically takes about 40 minutes to complete, or 27 miles per hour (Table 2, yes, I keep track of my commute times, per Galton’s famous maxim: “Whenever you can, count”).

Figure 2. View west along Interstate H-1 (Lunalilo Freeway) at 6:30AM on a weekday, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. Image used with permission, credit: S. Dohm.

Table 2. A sampling of average commute speeds, miles per hour (mph),  on the H1 freeway during DrD’s morning commute (distance about 19.3 miles).

Try on your own.

Calculate the ICC for my commute speeds.

Run the one-way ANOVA to get the necessary mean squares and input the values into our ICC function. We have

require(psych)
m2ICC = myICC(AnovaModel.1, 4, 4,11); m2ICC
[1] 0.7390535 0.6061784 0.8719286

Repeatability, as estimated by the ICC, was 0.74 (95% CI 0.606, 0.872), for repeat measures of commute times.

We can ask the same about marathon runners — how consistent from race to race are these runners? The following data are race times drawn from a sample of runners who completed the Honolulu Marathon in both 2016 and 2017 in 2 to 3 hours (times recorded in minutes). In other words, are elite runners consistent?

Table 3. Honolulu marathon running times (min) for eleven repeat, elite runners.

Stacked worksheet, P refers to person, therefore P1 is person ID 1, P2 is person ID 2, and so on.

After running a one-way ANOVA, here are results for the marathon runners

m2ICC = myICC(Model.1, 2, 10,11); m2ICC
[1] 0.9780464 0.9660059 0.9900868

Repeatability, as estimated by the ICC, was 0.98 (95% CI 0.966, 0.990), for repeat measures of marathon performance. Put more simply, knowing what a runner did in 2016 I would be able to predict their 2017 race performance with high confidence, 98%!

And now, we compare: the runners are more consistent!

Clearly this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it gives us a chance to think about how we might make such comparisons. The ICC will change because of differences among individuals. For example, if individuals are not variable, if everyone finishes the race at the same time, then the ICC will be low (or even zero).  Because there is no variance to be attributed to individual differences, the proportion of total variance explained by those differences will be being minimal.

Visualizing repeated measures.

Waterfall plot.

If just two measures, then a profile plot will do. We introduced profile plots in the paired t-test chapter (Ch10.3). For more than two repeated measures, a line graph will do (see question 9 below). Another graphic increasingly used is the waterfall plot (waterfall chart), particularly for before and after measures or other comparisons against a baseline. For example, it’s a natural question for our eleven marathon runners — how much did they improve on the second attempt of the same course? Figure 3 shows my effort to provide a visual.

Figure 3. Simple waterfall plot of race improvement for Table 3 data. Dashed horizontal line at zero.

R code

Data wrangling: Create a new variable, eg, race21, by subtracting the first time from the second time. Multiply by -1 so that improvement (faster time in second race) is positive. Finally, apply descending sort so that improvement is on the left and increasingly poorer times are on the right.

df <- data.frame(
ID = rep(paste0("P", 1:11), each = 2),
Time = c(179.9,192.0,
129.9,130.8,
128.5,129.6,
179.4,179.7,
174.3,181.7,
177.2,176.2,
169.0,173.4,
174.1,175.2,
175.1,174.2,
163.9,175.9,
179.3,179.8)
)

# Convert to wide format
df_wide <- reshape(df, idvar = "ID", timevar = "ID",
direction = "wide")

# Extract first and second times manually
time_matrix <- matrix(df$Time, ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE)
colnames(time_matrix) <- c("Time1", "Time2")

# Calculate improvement (second - first)
base21 <- time_matrix[,2] - time_matrix[,1]

# Sort for waterfall display
base21 <- sort(base21, decreasing = TRUE)

# Waterfall plot
barplot(base21, col="blue", border="blue", space=0.5,
ylim=c(-20,20),
ylab="Improvement from first race (min)")
abline(h=0, lty=2)

Interpretation.

From the graph (Fig 3) we see that few of the racers improved their times the second time around — a few had decreased times.

Spaghetti plots.

Spaghetti plots, which display individual trajectories over time or multiple measurements, is a specialized line plot effective for visualizing the consistency of performance. The vertical thickness or spread of a single subject’s line across measurements indicates their level of repeatability. A “flat” line indicates high repeatability, while a volatile, zig-zagging line indicates low repeatability. Spaghetti plots are useful to visualize growth, decline, or stability over time for a single performance measure.

Figure 4. A spaghetti plot of average commute speeds from Table 2 data. 

R code

# 1. Enter the data from Table 2.
commute <- data.frame(
Week = 1:4,
Monday = c(28.5, 25.8, 26.2, 23.3),
Tuesday = c(23.8, 22.4, 22.6, 26.9),
Wednesday = c(28.5, 29.3, 24.9, 31.3),
Thursday = c(30.2, 26.2, 24.2, 26.2),
Friday = c(26.9, 27.7, 34.3, 30.2)
)

head(commute)

# 2. Set the X-axis points
days <- 1:5
day_names <- c("Mon", "Tue", "Wed", "Thu", "Fri")

# 3. Create empty plot
# Find range of Y to ensure all data fits
ymin <- min(commute[, 2:6]) - 2
ymax <- max(commute[, 2:6]) + 2

plot(NA, xlim = c(1, 5), ylim = c(ymin, ymax),
xlab = "Day of Week", ylab = "Average Speed (mph)",
main = "Weekly Commute Speeds", xaxt = "n")

# Add X-axis labels
axis(1, at = 1:5, labels = day_names)

# 4. Add lines for each week (spaghetti)
colors <- c("red", "blue", "darkgreen", "purple")
for (i in 1:nrow(commute)) {
# Plot lines
lines(days, commute[i, 2:6], col = colors[i], lwd = 2, type = "b", pch = 19)
}

# 5. Add legend
legend("topleft", legend = paste("Week", 1:4), col = colors, lwd = 2, pch = 19)

Parallel coordinates plots.

Parallel coordinates plot allows each entity to be represented by a unique, continuous line traced across several vertical axes (each representing a different measurement or variable). High repeatability is indicated when a line remains roughly horizontal across all axes, while poor repeatability is visualized as lines that zig-zag or change direction between measurements.

Figure 5. A parallel coordinates plot of average commute speeds from Table 2 data.

Both spaghetti plots and parallel coordinate plots can be used to visualize consistency of performance over multiple measures, but they differ significantly in their handling of data, scale, and context. Spaghetti plots are best for tracking within-subject variability over time, but quickly become a mess — like pasta tossed and sticking to a wall — when subject count increases. Parallel coordinate plots are a multivariate generalization — each line represents an individual’s profile across different tests, eg, accuracy, speed, VO2max.

R code.

# 1. Create the data frame
# see above

# 2. Extract only the numerical commute data for plotting
commute_data <- commute[, 2:6]

# 3. Setup the plot area
# Define range for y-axis
y_range <- range(commute_data)
# Define number of days (5)
num_days <- ncol(commute_data)

# Create empty plot
plot(NA, xlim = c(1, num_days), ylim = y_range, 
xaxt = "n", xlab = "Day of Week", ylab = "Average Speed (mph)",
main = "Average Commute Speed: Weekly Comparison")

# Add x-axis labels
axis(1, at = 1:num_days, labels = colnames(commute_data))

# 4. Draw vertical lines for each day
for (i in 1:num_days) {
lines(c(i, i), y_range, col = "grey", lty = 2)
}

# 5. Add lines for each week (repeated measures)
colors <- c("red", "blue", "darkgreen", "orange")
for (i in 1:nrow(commute_data)) {
lines(1:num_days, commute_data[i, ], col = colors[i], lwd = 2, type = "b", pch = 19)
}

# 6. Add legend
legend("topleft", legend = paste("Week", commute$Week), col = colors, lwd = 2, pch = 19)

Heat map.

Heat map quickly identify patterns, such as an individual’s performance improving, degrading, or remaining stable over time. For example, uniform, solid colors across rows (individuals) or columns (time/trials) indicate high consistency, while varied colors indicate poor repeatability.

Figure 6. A heat map of the commute speeds data set.

R code.

# 1. Create the data
# Week is excluded from matrix to only include numerical commute times
commute_data <- matrix(c(
28.5, 23.8, 28.5, 30.2, 26.9,
25.8, 22.4, 29.3, 26.2, 27.7,
26.2, 22.6, 24.9, 24.2, 34.3,
23.3, 26.9, 31.3, 26.2, 30.2
), nrow = 4, byrow = TRUE)

# 2. Add row and column names
rownames(commute_data) <- c("Week 1", "Week 2", "Week 3", "Week 4")
colnames(commute_data) <- c("Mon", "Tue", "Wed", "Thu", "Fri")

# 3. Create the heatmap
# Use t() to transpose so weeks are rows and days are columns
# Use rev() on rows to have Week 1 at the top
image_data <- t(apply(commute_data, 2, rev))

# Set up the plotting area (margins for labels)
par(mar = c(5, 6, 4, 2))

# Plot the matrix
# Option 1
image(1:nrow(image_data), 1:ncol(image_data), image_data,
col = heat.colors(12),
axes = FALSE, xlab = "Days", ylab = "",
main = "Commute Times Heatmap")

# Add axes labels
axis(1, at = 1:5, labels = colnames(commute_data))
axis(2, at = 1:4, labels = rev(rownames(commute_data)), las = 1)
box()

Interpretation.

The graphs (Fig 4 – 6) show a lack of trends in consistency of drive speeds. The heat map suggests more consistency on Monday — low speeds (Fig 4 & Fig 5), but that’s a stretch.

An example for you to work, from our Measurement Day

If you recall, we had you calculate length and width measures on shells from samples of gastropod and bivalve species. In the table are repeated measures of shell length, by caliper in mm, for a sample of Conus shells (Fig 7 and Table 4).

Figure 7. Conus shells, image by M. Dohm.

Repeated measures of the same 12 Conus shells.

Table 4. Unstacked dataset of repeated length measures on 12 shells

Maximum length from from anterior end to apex with calipers. Repeated measures were conducted blind to shell id, sampling was random over three separate time periods.

Questions

1. Consider data in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. True or False: The arithmetic mean is an appropriate measure of central tendency. Explain your answer.
2. Enter the shell data into R; Best to copy and stack the data in your spreadsheet, then import into R or R Commander. Once imported, don’t forget to change Sample to character, otherwise R will treat Sample as ratio scale data type. Run your one-way ANOVA and calculate the intraclass correlation (ICC) for the dataset. Is the shell length measure repeatable?
3. The marathon results in Table 2 are paired data, results of two races run by the same individuals. Make a profile plot for the data (see Ch10.3 for help).
4. A profile plot is used to show paired data; for two or more repeat measures, use a line graph instead.
   A. Produce a line graph for data in Table 4. The line graph is an option in R Commander (Rcmdr: Graphs Line graph…), and can be generated with the following simple R code:

lineplot(Sample, Measure1, Measure2, Measure3)

B. What trends, if any, do you see? Report your observations.
C. Make another line plot for data in Table 2. Report any trend and include your observations.

Quiz Chapter 12.3

Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings

12.2 – One way ANOVA

Introduction

In ANalysis Of VAriance, or ANOVA for short, we likewise have tools to test the null hypothesis of no difference between between categorical independent variables — often called factors when there’s just a few levels to keep track of — and a single, dependent response variable. But now, the response variable is quantitative, not qualitative like the tests.

Analysis of variance, ANOVA, is such an important statistical test in biology that we will take the time to “build it” from scratch. We begin by reminding you of where you’ve been with the material.

We already saw an example of this null hypothesis. When there’s only one factor (but with two or more levels), we call the analysis of means and “one-way ANOVA.” In the independent sample t-test, we tested whether two groups had the same mean. We made the connection between the confidence interval of the difference between the sample means and whether or not it includes zero (ie, no difference between the means). In ANOVA, we extend this idea to a test of whether two or more groups have the same mean. In fact, if you perform an ANOVA on only two groups, you will get the exact same answer as the independent two-sample t-test, although they use different distributions of critical values (t for the t-test, F for the ANOVA — a nice little fact for you square the t-test statistic, you’ll get the F-test statistic: ).

Let’s say we have an experiment where we’ve looked at the effect of different three different calorie levels on weight change in middle-aged men.

I’ve created a simulated dataset which we will use in our ANOVA discussions. The data set is available at the end of this page (scroll down or click here).

We might graph the mean weight changes ( SEM); Below are two possible outcomes of our experiment (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Hypothetical results of an experiment, box plots. Left, no difference among groups; Right, large differences among groups.

As statisticians and scientists, we would first calculate an overall or grand mean for the entire sample of observations; we know this as the sample mean whose symbol is . But this overall mean is made up of the average of the sample means. If the null hypothesis is true, then the all of the sample means all estimate the overall mean. Put another way, being a member of a treatment group doesn’t matter, ie, there is no systematic effect, all differences among subjects are due to random chance.

The hypotheses among are three groups or treatment levels then are:

Null that there are no differences among the group means. And the alternative hypotheses include any (or all) of the following possibilities

or maybe

or… have we covered all possible alternate outcomes among three groups?

In either case, we could use one-way ANOVA to test for “statistically significant differences.”

Three important terms you’ll need for one-way ANOVA

FACTOR: We have one factor of interest. For example, a factor of interest might be

• Diet fed to hypertensive subjects (men and women)
• Distribution of coral reef sea cucumber species in archipelagos
• Antibiotic drug therapy for adolescents with Acne vulgaris (click see Webster 2002 for review).

Gender <- c("Gender non-conforming", "Men", "Non-binary", "Transgender", "Women", "Declined"); Gender
[1] "Gender non-conforming" "Men" "Non-binary" "Transgender" 
[5] "Women" "Declined"

is.factor(Gender)
[1] FALSE

LEVELS: We can have multiple levels (2 or more) within the single factor. Some examples of levels for the Factors listed:

• Three diets (DASH), diet rich in fruits & vegetables, control diet)
• Five archipelagos (Hawaiian Islands, Line Islands, Marshal Islands, Bonin Islands, and Ryukyu Islands)
• Five antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, erythromycin, doxycycline, minocycline).

RESPONSE: There is one outcome or measurement variable. This variable must be quantitative (ie, on the ratio or interval scale). Continuing our examples then

• Reduction in systolic pressure
• Numbers of individual sea cucumbers in a plot
• number of microcomedo.

The response variable can be just about anything we can measure, but because ANOVA is a parametric test, the response variable must be normally distributed!

Note on experimental design

As we discuss ANOVA, keep in mind we are talking about analyzing results from an experiment. Understanding statistics, and in particular ANOVA, informs how to plan an experiment. The basic experimental design is called a completely randomized experimental design, or CDR, where treatments are assigned to experimental units at random.

In this experimental design, subjects (experimental units) must be randomly assigned to each of these levels of the factor. That is, each individual should have had the same probability of being found in any one of the levels of the factor. The design is complete because randomization is conducted for all levels, all factors.

Thinking about how you would describe an experiment with three levels of some treatment, we would have

Table 1. Summary statistics of three levels for some ratio scale response variable.

ANOVA sources of variation

ANOVA works by partitioning total variability about the means (the grand mean, the group means). We will discuss the multiple samples and how the ANOVA works in terms of the sources of variation. There are two “sources” of variation that can occur:

• Within Group Variation
• Among Groups Variation

So let’s look first at the variability within groups, also called the Within Group Variation.

Consider and experiment to see if DASH diet reduces systolic blood pressure in USA middle-aged men and women with hypertension (Moore et al 2001). After eight weeks we have

We get the corrected sum of squares, SS, for within group

and the degrees of freedom, DF, for within groups

where i is the identity of the groups,  is the individual observations within group i, is the group i mean, n_i is the sample size within each group, N is the total sample size of all subjects for all groups, and k is the number of groups.

Importantly, this value is also referred to as “error sums of squares” in ANOVA. It’s importance is as follows — In our example, the within group variability would be zero if and only if all subjects within the same diet lost exactly the same amount of weight. This is hardly ever the case of course in a real experiment. Because there are almost always some other unknown factors or measurement error that affect the response variable, there will be some unknown variation among individuals who received the same treatment (within the same group). Thus, the error variance will generally be larger than zero.

The first point to consider: your ANOVA will never result in statistical differences among the groups if the error variance is greater than the second type of variability, the variability between groups.

The second type of variability in ANOVA is that due to the groups or treatments. Individuals given a calorie-restricted diet will lose some weight; individuals allowed to eat a calorie-rich diet likely will gain weight, therefore there will be variability (a difference) due to the treatment. So we can calculate the variability among groups. We get the corrected sum of squares for among groups

and the degrees of freedom for among groups

where i is the identity of the groups, is the grand mean as defined in Measures of Central Tendency (Chapter 3.1), is the group i mean, n_i is the sample size within each group, N is the total sample size of all subjects for all groups, and k is the number of groups.

The sums of squares here is simply subtracting the mean of each population from the overall mean.

• If the Factor is not important in explaining the variation among individuals then all the population means will be similar and the sums of squares among populations would be small.
• If the Factor is important in explaining some of the variation among the individuals then all the population means will NOT be the same and the sums of squares among populations would be large.

Finally, we can identify the total variation in the entire experiment. We have the total sum of squares.

Thus, the insight of ANOVA is that variation in the dataset may be attributed to a portion explained by differences among the groups and differences among individual observations within each group. The inference comes from recognizing that if the among group effect is greater than the within group effect, then there will be a difference due to the treatment levels.

Mean squares

To decide whether the variation associated with the among group differences are greater than the within group variation, we calculate ratios of the sums of squares. These are called Mean Squares or MS for short. The ratio of the Mean Squares is called F, the test statistic for ANOVA.

For the one-way ANOVA we will have two Mean Squares  and one F, tested with degrees of freedom for both the numerator , and denominator ).

The Mean Square for (among) groups is

The Mean Square for error is

And finally, the value for F, the test statistic for ANOVA, is

Worked example with R

A factor with three levels, A, B, and C

group <- c("A", "A", "A", "B", "B", "B", "C", "C", "C")

and their responses, simulated

response <- c(10.8, 11.8, 12.8, 6.5, 7, 8, 3.8, 2.8, 3)

We create a data frame

all <- data.frame(group, response)

Of course, you could place the data into a worksheet and then import the worksheet into R. Regardless, we now have our dataset.

Now, call the ANOVA function, aov, and assign the results to an object (eg, Model.1)

Model.1 <- aov(response ~ group, data=all)

Now, visualize the ANOVA table

summary(Model.1)

and the output from R, the ANOVA table, is shown below

Table 2. Output from aov() command, the ANOVA table, for the “Difference” outcome variable.

           Df   Sum Sq    Mean Sq   F value       Pr(>F) 
group       2   111.16      55.58     89.49    0.0000341 ***
Residuals   6     3.73       0.62
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Let’s take the ANOVA table one row at a time

• The first row has subject headers defining the columns.
• The second row of the table “groups” contains statistics due to group, and provides the comparisons among groups.
• The third row, “Residuals” is the error, or the differences within groups.

Moving across the columns, then, for each row, we have in turn,

• the degrees of freedom (there were 3 groups, therefore 2 DF for group),
• the Sums of Squares, the Mean Squares,
• the value of F, and finally,
• the P-value.

R provides a helpful guide on the last line of the ANOVA summary table, the “Signif[icance] codes,” which highlights the magnitude of the P-value.

What to report? ANOVA problems can be much more complicated than the simple one-way ANOVA introduced here. For complex ANOVA problems, report the ANOVA table itself! But for the one-way ANOVA it would be sufficient to report the test statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the p-value, as we have in previous chapters (eg, t-test, chi-square, etc.). Thus, we would report:

F = 89.49, df = 2 and 6, p = 0.0000341

where F = 89.49 is the test statistic, df = 2 (degrees of freedom for the among group mean square) and 6 (degrees of freedom for the within group mean square), and p = 0.0000341 is the p-value.

In Rcmdr, the appropriate command for the one-way ANOVA is simply

Rcmdr: Statistics → Means

Figure 2. Screenshot Rcmdr select one-way ANOVA.

which brings up a simple dialog. R Commander anticipates factor (Groups) and Response variable. Optional, choose Pairwise comparisons of means for post-hoc test (Tukey’s) and, if you do not want to assume equal variances (see Chapter 13), select Welch F-test.

Figure 3. Screenshot Rcmdr select one-way ANOVA options.

Questions

1. Review the example ANOVA Table and confirm the following

• How many levels of the treatment were there?
• How many sampling units were there?
• Confirm the calculation of and  using the formulas contained in the text.
• Confirm the calculation of F using the formula contained in the text.
• The degrees of freedom for the F statistic in this example were 2 and 6 (F_2,6). Assuming a two-tailed test with Type I error rate of 5%, What is the critical value of the F distribution (see Appendix 20.4)

2. Repeat the one-way ANOVA using the simulated data, but this time, calculate the ANOVA problem for the “No.difference” response variable.

3. Leaf lengths from three strains of Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown in common garden are shown in Fig 2. Data are provided for you in the following R script.

arabid <- c("wt","wt","wt","AS1","AS1","AS1","AS2","AS2","AS2")
leaf <- c(4.909,5.736,5.108,6.956,5.809,6.888,4.768,4.209,4.065)
leaves <- data.frame(arabid,leaf)

• Write out a null and alternative hypotheses
• Conduct a test of the null hypothesis by one-way ANOVA
• Report the value of the test statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the P-value
• Do you accept or reject the null hypothesis? Explain your choice.

Figure 4. Box plot of lengths of leaves of a 10-day old plant from on of three strains of Arabidopsis thaliana.

4. Return to your answer to question 7 from Chapter 12.1 and review your answer and modify as appropriate to correct your language to that presented here about factors and levels.

5. Conduct the one-way ANOVA test on the Comet assay data presented question 7 from Chapter 12.1. Data are copied for your convenience to end of this page. Obtain the ANOVA table and report the value of the test statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-value.
a. Based on the ANOVA results, do you accept or reject the null hypothesis? Explain your choice.

Quiz Chapter 12.2

One-way ANOVA

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data used in this page

Difference, no difference

Table 12.2 Difference or No Difference

Comet assay, antioxidant properties of tea

Data presented in Chapter 12.1

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings