14.4 – Randomized block design

Introduction

Randomized Block Designs and Two-Factor ANOVA

In previous lectures, we have introduced you to the standard factorial ANOVA, which may be characterized as being crossed, balanced, and replicated. We expect additional factors (covariates) may contribute to differences among our experimental units, but rather than testing them — which would increase need for additional experimental units because of increased number of groups to test — we randomize our subjects. Randomization is intended to disrupt trends of confounding variables (aka covariates). If the resulting experiment has missing values (see Chapter 5), then we can say that the design is partially replicated; if only one observation is made per group, then the design is not replicated — and perhaps, not very useful!!

A special type of Two-factor ANOVA which includes a “blocking” factor and a treatment factor.

Randomization is one way to control for “uninteresting” confounding factors. Clearly, there will be scenarios in which randomization is impossible. For example, it is impossible to randomly assign subjects to The blocking factor is similar to the 10.3 – Paired t-test. In the paired t-test we had two individuals or groups that we paired (e.g. twins). One specific design is called the Randomized Block Design and we can have more than 2 members in the group. We arrange the experimental units into similar groups, i.e., the blocking factor. Examples of blocking factors may include day (experiments are run over different days), location (experiments may be run at different locations in the laboratory), nucleic acid kits (different vendors), operator (different assistants may work on the experiments), etcetera.

In general we may not be directly interested in the blocking factor. This blocking factor is used to control some factor(s) that we suspect might affect the response variable. Importantly, this has the effect of reducing the sums of squares by an amount equal to the sums of squares for the block. If variability removed by the blocking is significant, Mean Square Error (MSE) will be smaller, meaning that the F for treatment will be bigger — meaning we have a more powerful ANOVA than if we had ignored the blocking.

Statistical Testing in Randomized Block Designs

“Blocks” is a Random Factor because we are “sampling” a few blocks out of a larger possible number of blocks. Treatment is a Fixed Factor, usually.

The statistical model is

The Sources of Variation are simpler than the more typical Two-Factor ANOVA because we do not calculate all the sources of variation –  the interaction is not tested! (Table 1).

Table 1. Sources of variation for a two-way ANOVA, randomized block design

Sources of Variation & Sum of Squares	DF	Mean Squares

Critical Value F_{0.05(2), (a – 1), (Total DF – a – b)}

In the exercise example above: Factor A = exercise or management plan.

Notice that we do not look at the interaction MS or the Blocking Factor (typically).

Learn by doing

Rather than me telling you, try on your own. We’ll begin with a worked example, then proceed to introduce you to three problems. Click here (Ch 14.8)for general discussion of Rcmdr and linear models for models other than the standard 2-way ANOVA (Chapter 14.8).

Worked example

Wheel running by mice is a standard measure of activity behavior. Even wild mice will use wheels (Meijer and Roberts 2014). For example, we conduct a study of family parity to see if offspring from the first, second, or third sets of births from wheel-running behavior in mice (total revs per 24 hr period). Each set of offspring from a female could be treated as a block. Data are for 3 female offspring from each pairing. This type of data set would look like this:

Table 2. Wheel running behavior by three offspring from each of three birth cohorts among four maternal sets (moms).

Thus, there were nine offspring for each female mouse (Dam1 – Dam4), three offspring per each of three litters of pups. The litters are the blocks. We need to get the data stacked to run in R. I’ve provided the dataset for you, scroll to end of this page or click here.

Question 1. Describe the problem and identify the treatment and blocking factors.

Answer. Each female has three litters. We’re primarily interested in genetics (and maternal environment) of wheel running behavior, which is associated with the moms (Treatment factor). The questions is whether there is an effect of birth parity on wheel running behavior. Offspring of a first-time mother may experience different environment than offspring of experienced mother. In this case, parity effects is an interesting question, nevertheless, blocking is the appropriate way to handle this type of problem.

Question 2. What is the statistical model?

Answer. Response variable, Y, is wheel running. Let α the effect of Dam and β the birth cohorts (i.e., the blocking effect).

Question 3. Test the model.

Answer. We fit the main effects, Dam and Block Fig 1.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Fit models → Linear model

Figure 1. Screenshot Rcmdr Linear Model menu.

then run the ANOVA summary to get the ANOVA table. Rcmdr: Models →  Hypothesis tests → ANOVA table.

Output

Anova Table (Type II tests)

Response: Wheel
           Sum Sq  Df  F value    Pr(>F) 
Dam       1467020   3   4.4732   0.01036 * 
Block     1672166   2   7.6482   0.00207 **
Residuals 3279544  30

Question 4.  Conclusions?

Answer. The null hypotheses are:

Treatment factor: Offspring of the different dams have same wheel running activity of offspring.

Blocking factor: No effect of litter parity on wheel running activity of offspring.

Both the treatment factor (p = 0.01036) and the blocking factor (p = 0.00207) were statistically significant.

Try on your own

Problem 1.

Or we might want to measure the Systolic Blood Pressure of individuals that are on different exercise regimens. However, we are not able to measure all the individuals on the same day at the same time. We suspect that time of day and the day of the year might effect an individuals blood pressure. Given this constraint, the best research design in this circumstance is to measure one individual on each exercise regime at the same time. These different individuals will then be in the same “block” because they share in common the time that their blood pressure was measured. This type of data set would look like this (Table 2):

Table 2. Simulated blood pressure of five subjects on three different exercise regimens.†

Let’s make a line graph to help us visualize trends (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Line graph of data presented in Table 2.

Question 1. Describe the problem and identify the treatment and blocking factors.

Question 2. What is the statistical model?

Question 3. Test the model.

Question 4.  Conclusions?

†You’ll need to arrange the data like the data set for the worked example.

Problem 2.

Another example in conservation biology or agriculture. There may be three different management strategies for promoting the recovery of a plant species. A good research design would be to choose many plots of land (blocks) and perform each treatment (management strategy) on a portion of each plot of land (block). A researcher would start with an equal number of plantings in the plots and see how many grew. The plots of land (blocks) share in common many other aspects of that particular plot of land that may effect the recovery of a species.

Table 3. Growth of plants in 5 different plots subjected to one of three management plans (simulated data set).†

†You’ll need to arrange the data the same arrangement as for the worked example.

These are examples of Two-Factor ANOVA but we are usually only interested in the treatment Factor. We recognize that the blocking factor may contribute to differences among groups and so wish to control for the fact that we carried out the experiments at different times (e.g., seasons) or at different locations (e.g., agriculture plots)

Question 1. Describe the problem and identify the treatment and blocking factors. Make a line graph to help visualize.

Question 2. What is the statistical model?

Question 3. Test the model.

Question 4.  Conclusions?

Repeated-Measures Experimental Design

If multiple measures are taken on the same individual, then we have a repeated-measures experiment. This is a Randomized Block Design. In other words, each animal gets all levels of a treatment (assigned randomly). Thus, samples (individuals) are not independent and the analysis needs to take this into account. Just like for paired-T tests, one can imagine a number of experiments in biomedicine that would conform to this design.

Problem 3.

The data are total blood cholesterol levels for 7 individuals given 3 different drugs (from example given in Zar 1999, Ex 12.5, pp. 257-258).

Table 5. Repeated measures of blood cholesterol levels of seven subjects on three different drug regimens.†

†You’ll need to arrange the data like the data set for the worked example.

Question 1: Is there an interaction term in this design? Make a line graph to help visualize.

Question 2: Are individuals a fixed or a random effect?

Question 2. What is the statistical model?

Question 3. Test the model. Note that we could have done the experiment with 21 randomly selected subjects and a one-factor ANOVA. However, the repeated measures design is best IF there is some association (“correlation”) between the data in each row. The computations are identical to the randomized block analysis.

Question 4.  Conclusions?

Problem 4.

Figure 3. Juvenile garter snake, image from GetArchive, public domain.

Here is a second example of a repeated measures design experiment. Garter snakes (Fig 3) respond to odor cues to find prey. Snakes use their tongues to “taste” the air for chemicals, and flick their tongues rapidly when in contact with suitable prey items, less frequently for items not suitable for prey. In the laboratory, researchers can test how individual snakes respond to different chemical cues by presenting each snake with a swab containing a particular chemical. The researcher then counts how many times the snake flicks its tongue in a certain time period (data presented p. 301, Glover and Mitchell 2016).

Table 6. Tongue flick counts of naïve newborn snakes to extracts†

†You’ll need to arrange the data like the data set for the worked example.

Question 1. Describe the problem and identify the treatment and blocking factors. Make a line graph to help visualize.

Question 2. What is the statistical model?

Question 3. Test the model.

Question 4.  Conclusions?

Additional questions

1. The advantage of a randomized block design over a completely randomized design is that we may compare treatments by using ________________ experimental units.
   A. randomly selected
   B. the same or nearly the same
   C. independent
   D. dependent
   E. All of the above
2. Which of the following is NOT found in an ANOVA table for a randomized block design?
   A. Sum of squares due to interaction
   B. Sum of squares due to factor 1
   C. Sum of squares due to factor 2
   D. None of the above are correct
3. A clinician wishes to compare the effectiveness of three competing brands of blood pressure medication. She takes a random sample of 60 people with high blood pressure and randomly assigns 20 of these 60 people to each of the three brands of blood pressure medication. She then measures the decrease in blood pressure that each person experiences. This is an example of (select all that apply)
   A. a completely randomized experimental design
   B. a randomized block design
   C. a two-factor factorial experiment
   D. a random effects or Type II ANOVA
   E. a mixed model or Type III ANOVA
   F. a fixed effects model or Type I ANOVA
4. A clinician wishes to compare the effectiveness of three competing brands of blood pressure medication. She takes a random sample of 60 people with high blood pressure and randomly assigns 20 of these 60 people to each of the three brands of blood pressure medication. She then measures the blood pressure before treatment and again 6 weeks after treatment for each person. This is an example of (select all that apply)
   A. a completely randomized experimental design
   B. a randomized block design
   C. a two-factor factorial experiment
   D. a random effects or Type II ANOVA
   E. a mixed model or Type III ANOVA
   F. a fixed effects model or Type I ANOVA

Data sets used in this page

Problem 1 data set

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

10.3 – Paired t-test

Introduction

Good experiments include controls. Interested in a new treatment for weight loss? Define a control group to compare the weight loss by a group using the new product. In many cases, the best control is the individual.

Consider now a basic experimental design, the randomized crossover trial (Fig. 1), introduced in Chapter 2.4.

Figure 1. A two group Randomized Crossover Trial.

Subjects randomly selected from population of interest, then again once recruited into one of two treatment arms: arm 1, subjects first receive the experimental treatment, then some time later the subjects receive the control treatment; arm 2, subjects first receive the control treatment, then some time later the subjects receive the experimental treatment. Note the difference between this paired or repeated measures design and the independent sample design (see Chapter 10.1). Repeated measures designs have many advantages; we discuss them further in Chapter 14.6. At the start, repeated measures designs have greater statistical power compared to cross-sectional (independent) sample designs.

Many experiments are designed so that subjects receive all treatments and responses are gauged against the initial values recorded on the subjects. Repeated measures statistical tests, like the paired t-test, are needed however to analyze the data. These types of statistical procedures are similar to the two sample independent t-test that we discussed earlier.

However, there is an important difference between these two types of statistical procedures. For the two independent sample t-test the samples are unpaired: we observed one variable on some individuals assigned to two different groups. These groups might be

• Two locations where we measure plants or animals
• A treatment (or experimental) group with a control group.
• Expression of cytokeratin genes (e.g., ΔΔC_T, fold-change) from breast cancer patients compared to healthy donor subjects (Andergassen et al 2016).

The point is that samples in one group are not the same samples in the second group.

In the paired t-test we have two groups but the observations in these two groups are paired. Paired means that there is some relationship between one observation in the first sample and one observation in the second sample (every observation in one sample must be paired with one observation in another sample).

For example, weight change in humans before and after a change in diet could be performed as a paired analysis. Each subject’s weight before the diet was “paired” with the same subject’s weight after the diet.

Another example comes from genetics. Siblings or Monozygotic twins or clones, strains or varieties of plants or animals can be Paired in an experiment.

• You can give one of the twins a particular diet, or the plant or animal clones or strains can be raised in a particular environment (nutrient)
• The other twin or plant or animal clone or variety can serve as a type of control by providing a normal diet or normal environment.

Another example is a study of environmental pollution on cancer rates in many different communities.

• The researchers selects pairs of communities with similar characteristics for many socioeconomic factors.
• Each pair of communities differed with respect to the proximity to a known source of pollution: one of the pair was close to a source of pollution and one of the pair was far from a source of pollution.

The purpose of pairing in this example is to attempt to “control” for all the socioeconomic factors that might contribute to cancer but they did not want to directly measure. These other factors should be similar for each member of the pair.

Example: How repeatable is human running performance?

Here’s an example in which a measure was taken twice for the same individuals. The data are running speed or pace during 5K race held annually on Oahu for a random sample of female runners (20 – 29 years old). The race was run annually on Oahu, and the data reported are the pace for the first race and the second race, which occurred a year later (Jamba Juice – Banana Man Chase, Ala Moana Beach Park, data extracted from source, https://timelinehawaii.com).

Table 1. 5K pace times (kph) for 15 women (20 – 29 years)

Load the data into R as an unstacked data set. Data available at end of this page or click here.

Begin with description and exploration of the data. Start with histograms to get a sense of the sample distributions (hint: we’re looking to see if the data looks like it could come from a normal distribution, see Chapter 13.3 Assumptions) (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Histograms shows the distribution of 5K running times of 15 women who ran the race twice.

R code (stacked data set, then used defaults R Commander to make the histogram, then modified the code and submitted modified code to make Fig. 1)

with(stackExCh10.3, Hist(obs, groups=Race, scale="frequency", breaks="Sturges", col="blue", 
xlab="Time (min)", ylab="Frequency")))

Conclusion? The histograms don’t look normally distributed so we keep this in mind as we proceed.

A box plot comparing the first and second pace times (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Box plot of  race speed (kph) for 15 women 5K in two successive years.

I added a trend line (linear regression, see Chapter 17, red line) and connected the averages (blue line)  for visual emphasis — no differences between the means — but note that one wouldn’t do this as part of an analysis (see Chapter 4 discussion).

R code for Fig. 2

Boxplot(obs~Race, data=stackExCh10.3, id=list(method="y"), xlab="", ylab="Pace (kph)") #boxplot was made in Rcmdr
abline(lm(obs ~ as.numeric(Race), data=stackExCh10.3), col="red", lwd=2)
means <- tapply(obs, Race, mean)
points(1:2, means, pch=7, col="blue")
lines(1:2, means, col="blue", lwd=2)

The box plot works to show the median difference, but loses the paired information. A nice package called PairedData has several functions that work well with paired data, for example a profile plot (Fig 4). A profile plot is useful for showing an association between paired data.

Figure 4. Profile plot, PairedData package.

R commands for Figure 4.

require(PairedData)
attach(example.ch10.3) # remember to attach dataframe so you don't have to call variables like example.ch10.3$Race1
races <- paired(Race1, Race2)
plot(races, type = "profile")

Paired t-test calculation

The paired t-test is a straight-forward extension of the independent sample t-test; the key concept is that the two samples are no longer independent, they are paired. Thus, instead of mean of group 1 minus mean of group two, we test the differences between sample 1 and sample 2 for each paired observation.

1. Compute the differences between the Paired Samples (as in tables above)
2. Calculate the MEAN difference score, : in the previous example = -0.094 kmh
3. Calculate the degrees of freedom df = # pairs – 1 = n – 1, where n is the number of pairs
4. Calculate the standard error of the mean of d.
   
   where
   
5. Calculate the test statistic for paired data
   
6. Compare to the Critical Value in Table C. 4 (Appendix Table 2)
7. Find the Critical Value = t _{α (2), df}

Try as difference instead of paired

Before you answer, take a look at the box plot of the mean difference between the repeat measures of 5K pace for the 15 women (Fig 5).

Figure 5. Box plot of differences, Red dotted lines shows the null hypothesis.

Create a new variable, raceDiff, equal to Race2 minus Race1. Then, use the one sample T-test on raceDiff. I’ll leave you to complete the work (Question 2).

R code

t.test(Race1, Race2, paired = TRUE, alternative = "two.sided")

R output

Paired t-test

data: Race.1 and Race.2
t = 0.19389, df = 14, p-value = 0.849
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
-0.9491017 1.1377521
sample estimates:
mean of the differences 
0.09432517

Rcmdr, paired t-test

Rcmdr: Statistics → Means → Paired t-test…

Note: your two groups must be in two different columns (unstacked!) to run this version of the test.

Figure 6. R Commander Paired t-test menu, Rcmdr version 2.7.

After selecting the variables, set null hypothesis after clicking on Options tab (Fig 6).

Figure 7. R Commander Paired t-Test options, select null hypothesis.

Click OK to proceed. Results will be the same as the output listed above.

the following text needs to be updated

Interpret the results.

So, what can we conclude about the null hypothesis? Interpret the 95% CI, the T-test statistic, and the P-value.

Do not ignore sample dependence

What if we ignored the repeated measures design and treated the first and second races as independent? The important concept here is to ask, what would have happened if we had done a two independent sample t-test instead?

Let’s run the analysis again, this time incorrectly using the independent sample t-test. We need to manipulate the data set before we do.

Manage your data: Stack the data

This is a good time to share how to Stack data in R. If you look at our active data set, the results of the two trials are in two different columns. In order to run the independent sample t-test we need the data in one column (with a label column).

stackExCh10.3 <- stack(example.ch10.3[, c("Race1","Race2")])
names(stackExCh10.3) <- c("obs", "Race")

Rcmdr: Data → Active data set → Stack variables in data set…

Figure 8. R Commander: Stack worksheet. Select the two variables, Race1 and Race2.

I entered values for name of the new data set, the new variable, and the name for the factor (label) column.

Figure 9. R Commander, select independent sample t-Test …

Figure 10. R commander, independent sample t test menu.

Figure 11. R Commander, select options for independent sample t-Test (assume equal variance).

Here are the results of the independent sample t-test from R.

t.test(obs~Race, alternative='two.sided', conf.level=.95, var.equal=TRUE, + data=stackCh10.3)

Two Sample t-test
data: obs by Race
t = 0.070645, df = 28, p-value = 0.9442
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 -2.640719 2.829369
sample estimates:
mean in group Race1 mean in group Race2 
 9.886342 9.792017

End R output

In this case, we would have reached the same general conclusion, but the p-values are different. The p-value from the paired t-test was about 0.85 whereas the p-value from the independent sample t-test was higher, nearly 0.95, suggesting little difference between the two trials.

While the general conclusion holds, this time, that there were no statistically significant difference between the means for first and second trials. However, it won’t always work out that way. And besides, if you treated the paired data as independent, you’ve clearly violated one of the assumptions of the test.

Take a look at the degrees of freedom for the two analyses. By ignoring the pairing of samples we gain twice the number of degrees of freedom … that can’t both be right. The way to distinguish between the two is to go back to the experimental units.

Question: What are the sampling units in the case of repeat measures on individuals: the individuals themselves? the pairs of burst speed trials? something else?

it is important to note that the paired t-test is still the best for this situation because it accurately reflects the experiment — individuals were measured twice, therefore the two groups (trial 1 and trial 2) are not independent! Thus, the p-value from the paired t-test correctly reflect our best analyses of the test of the null hypothesis because the correct degrees of freedom were 14 and not 28.

In the case of the independent sample t-test we necessarily make the assumption that the two groups are independent — that is, that they are measured on different sampling units (e.g., different individuals or subjects). In statistical terms, that means that you assume that the correlation between trial results is equal to zero. By incorrectly choosing an independent sample test in these repeated measures cases, I would make two null hypotheses: (1) that the means are the same and (2) that the correlation between repeat measures is zero. The problem? The t-test only evaluates the first hypothesis (means).

Questions

1. Refer to Figure 6 again and related data set. Were runners faster the second year or the first year running the 5k? What about the points labeled 4 and 14? What was the average difference between first and second races?
2. Complete the test of the null hypothesis of no difference between race 1 and race 2 (raceDiff) with the one sample t-test. Set up a table to compare the test statistic, df, and p-values for results from paired t test, one sample t-test, and independent sample t-test. How do these results compare?
3. I’ve called the observed value “pace,” but runners would know that pace is actually amount of time per kilometer, not the total time over 5k, which is what I called pace.
   • Create a new variable and report average pace for Race1 and Race2.
   • Redo the paired analysis, including box plot, on your new variable.
   • What is the null hypothesis for your new variable?
   • Summarize your results and add to the table you created for question 2.
4. Redo the two plots in Figure 2 so that the two histograms are on the sample plot. Instructions and examples were provided in Chapter 4.2.

Data set

example.ch10.3 <- read.table(header=TRUE, text = "
ID Race1 Race2
1 15.28 15.61
2 11.22 11.19
3 8.80 9.14
4 8.88 5.46
5 9.81 10.50
6 6.12 5.69
7 8.31 8.71
8 6.26 7.42
9 17.16 16.41
10 16.23 15.82
11 5.90 7.12
12 8.31 10.48
13 5.93 8.64
14 10.54 5.99
15 9.53 8.69
")

Chapter 10 contents

• Introduction
• Compare two independent sample means
• Digging deeper into t-test Plus the Welch test
• Paired t-test
• References and suggested reading

10 – Inferences, Quantitative: Two Sample tests

Introduction

A one sample parametric test compares the mean against a population value. The population value may come literally from census information, or, more likely, it comes from some applicable theory. The one sample t-test was presented along with how to calculate the confidence interval in the previous chapter.

In this chapter, we also extend to consider two samples, tests about hypotheses for two groups. The two groups may consist of observations on different subjects, and thus the two groups are independent of each other — an independent sample t-test may be used to test null hypothesis. A common experimental design is to measure individuals two or more times, e.g., observations like body mass index, BMI, recorded on individuals at the start of an exercise program, and again on the same individuals some time after a treatment — a repeated measures design. In this case, the measures are paired and are, thus, not independent, and a paired-sample t-test would be advised.

Two sample parametric tests are used to answer questions about the mean where the data are collected from two random samples of independent observations, each from an underlying normal distribution. The samples may be independent or paired, in which different hypotheses are tested.

Chapter 10 contents

• Introduction
• Compare two independent sample means
• Digging deeper into t-test Plus the Welch test
• Paired t-test
• References and suggested reading