The Factorial Design

Report draft by Dien Castillon

When does an experimenter need to use the factorial design?

When an experimenter wants to examine two or more independent variables, he/she must use the
factorial design. In using the factorial design, the experimenter yields more information in less
time (McBurney, 1990). Below are the other purposes of using the factorial design (Simon,
1978; McGuigan, 1979).

To observe and examine two or more independent variables simultaneously

To determine whether two or more variables interact with or potentiate each other
To look at as much responses as possible
To reduce the chance of overlooking possible effects from each factor

How does an experimenter draft a factorial design? (Meyers, 1987; Trohim, 2006)

The experimenter must first

specify the factors or the major
independent variables in the
experiment. Figure 1 shows that
two factors were considered in
determining the best variation in
teaching a group of students: the
time in instruction and the class
setting.

The factors must have two or more

values, which are called levels. As
shown in Figure 1, each factor has
two levels (time in instruction: 1
hour per week, 4 hours per week;
class setting: in-class, pull-out).

Figure 1. A factorial design on determining the best variations in

creating an instructional program (Trochim, 2006)

If the number of levels of each factor is multiplied, the result is the number of treatment groups. As
time in instruction has two levels and class setting also has two levels, there are four treatment
groups in the sample experiment: (1) one-hour in-class session (2) one-hour pull-out class (3) four-
hour in-class session, and (4) four-hour pull-out class.

As soon as the factors, levels, and the number of treatment groups have been decided, the
experimenter must create a table. The values of the dependent variable (data found inside the cells)
should be group averages. Figures 2, 3, and 4 (page 3) show complete contingency tables where the
values inside the cells are the average quiz grades (ranging from 1 to 10) of the students in each
group.
Apart from creating a table, an experimenter can also depict a factorial design by notation. In
notations, the number of numbers tells the number of factors while the value of each number tells
how many levels each factor has. The design shown in Figure 1 is called a 2 x 2 factorial design
because it has two factors with two levels each. Any design with two factors, regardless of the
number of levels, is called a two-factor design. The order of numbers makes no difference; a 2 x
3 factorial design can also be termed a 3 x 2 factorial design.

Conversely, a notation such as 2 x 3 x 2 factorial design is called a three-factor design. The

notational example shows that there are three factors in which the first and the third have two
levels and the second, three. Figure 7 (page 4) shows a 2 x 3 x 2 factorial design that is drafted to
determine which variation can best treat cocaine abuse patients. The outcome ranges from 1 to
10 representing the severity of the patient’s condition, the lowest indicating great recovery and
the highest indicating that the suffering from the abuse remains. The factors used are treatment
whose levels are psychotherapy and behavior modification; setting whose levels are inpatient,
day treatment, outpatient; and medicine dosage whose levels are 100 mg and 300 mg.

What is a main effect?

A main effect is the action of one independent variable in the experiment; one main effect
corresponds to the influence of only one independent variable across treatment conditions
(Meyers, 1987). A main effect is calculated by getting the average of the values across rows
and columns.

What is an interaction?

An interaction occurs when the effect of one factor depends on the level of other factor/s
(Meyers, 1987; Trochim, 2006). Finding interactions is needed to interpret the main effects.
Interactions reveal if the factors produced their main effects independently or with the influence
of another factor. A case in point is the role of moderator variables in an experiment. Moderator
variables interact with the independent variable as they strengthen, weaken, or reverse its effect.
Another case in point is a drug interaction where two drugs are harmful when taken together but
safe when taken separately. Trochim (2006) lists three ways in which an experimenter can
determine whether there is an interaction between independent variables or not.

By running a statistical analysis (i.e. through SPSS)

When you can't discuss an effect on one factor without mentioning the other factor
When you plot the values in a graph
o Line graph: if the lines are not parallel (except if they overlap each other )
o Bar graph: if the difference of the values of one factor is different from the
difference of the values of other factor/s

How do you depict the values?

Variations in a factorial design can be plotted in either a line graph or a bar graph, both to
determine if there is an interaction between or among factors. In making both graphs, the Y-axis
should always be the dependent variable. The X-axis would depend on the factor whose main
effect you want to observe; if you want to observe the main effect of Factor A, make Factor B
the X-axis and vice versa. There should be one bar or line graph per factor to determine whether
each factor has significant main effects. Between a line graph and a bar graph, it is the former
that is commonly used. The examples below come with line graphs.

What are the possible outcomes in a factorial design?

There are different outcomes in a factorial

design. Figure 2 shows a null case where all
groups achieved an average quiz score of 5
(out of 10), resulting in one value for all main
effects.

Logically, if all main effects are similar in

value, then it means that all treatments had no
significant effect. If the values will be plotted
in a line graph, the lines will only overlap
each other while in a bar graph, all bars will
be at the same level.
Figure 2. A 2x2 factorial design with null main effects
(Trochim, 2006)

Figures 3 and 4 show outcomes where only one factor has a main effect and no interaction is
found between the factors. In Figure 3, the lines in the graph for setting overlap each other,
indicating that the effect is null, unlike the lines in the graph for time where they are parallel
indicating that time renders a significant main effect and has no interaction with setting. The
reverse outcome is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. A 2x2 factorial design which shows one main Figure 4. A 2x2 factorial design which shows one main
effect [for time] and no interaction. (Trochim, 2006) effect [for setting] and no interaction. (Trochim, 2006)

Figure 5 shows an outcome where both factors have main effects and no interaction is found
between the factors. Because both main effects are significant, it is easier to interpret results. It is
shown in Figure 5 that the best variation is clearly the four-hour in-class session because (1) it
garnered the highest average in the table (2) the blue line, which corresponds to 4 hours and in-
class in each graph, is higher than the red line, which in turn corresponds to 1 hour and pull-out.
It can also be seen in Figure 5 that the lines in both graphs are parallel, showing that the factors
do not interact with each other.

Figure 6 shows an outcome where both factors have main effects and an interaction is found
between the factors. As shown in Figure 6, it can be interpreted that the four-hour in-class
session is superior to the rest for the same reasons cited in Figure 5. It can also be seen in Figure
6 that the lines in both graphs are tangential, showing that time and setting in this case interact
with each other.

Figure 5. A 2x2 factorial design with two main effects [for Figure 6. A 2x2 factorial design with two main effects [for
both time and setting] and no interaction. (Trochim, 2006) both time and setting] and an interaction. (Trochim, 2006)

It is difficult to make line graphs

for three-factor designs as there
are multiple possible graphs in
designs like these. The safest
method to determine if the factors
interact with each other is through
statistical analysis. The only result
that can be concretely interpreted
from Figure 7 is that one three-
level combination works best and
that is prescribing a 300 mg.
dosage in a psychotherapy
treatment in an inpatient setting. It
garnered a group average of 3,
indicating that the severity of the
patient’s illness dropped
significantly during the treatment.
Figure 7. A 2x3x2 design (Trochim, 2006)

References:

McBurney, D. (1990). Experimental Psychology. Ohio: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

McGuigan, F. (1979). Experimental Psychology: Methods of Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Meyers, A. (1987). Experimental Psychology. Kentucky: Cengage Learning Inc.
Simon, J. (1978). Basic Research Methods in Social Science: The art of empirical investigation. McGraw-Hill College
Trochim, W. (2006). Research Methods Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/index.php