0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

111 (de) vizualizări32 paginiOct 31, 2011

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

111 (de) vizualizări

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- The Handmaid's Tale
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life
- Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis
- How To Win Friends and Influence People
- American Gods: The Tenth Anniversary Edition: A Novel
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Giver
- Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife
- The Dark Tower I: The Gunslinger
- Animal Farm and 1984
- A People's History of the United States: Highlights from the Twentieth Century
- A People's History of the United States
- Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
- Bird Box: A Novel
- A Wrinkle in Time: The Graphic Novel

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 32

Three-way ANOVA Interpreting Effects Structural model & SS partitioning Contrasts Analyzing Effects Effect sizes Higher-order ANOVA An example 8-2 8-6 8-11 8-16 8-20 8-25 8-26 8-27

8-1

2011 A. Karpinski

Factorial ANOVA Higher order ANOVAs 1. Three-way ANOVA A three-way analysis of variance has three independent variables o Factor A with a levels o Factor B with b levels o Factor C with c levels All of the procedures we developed for a two-way ANOVA can be extended to a three-way ANOVA. The interpretation gets more difficult and the math is messier For simplicity, we will examine the simplest three way ANOVA: 2*2*2 design o Factor A with 2 levels o Factor B with 2 levels o Factor C with 2 levels I will present the formulas in their general form, and will give an example of a more complex design at the conclusion

8-2

2011 A. Karpinski

An example of source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information

High Self-Monitors Strong Argument Expert Source Attractive Source 4 4 4 2 3 6 4 3 4 3 2 4 5 4 3 3 2 5 5 2 5 4 3 4 Weak Argument Expert Source Attractive Source 3 4 5 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 7 6 2 3 5 7 6 2 6 7 4 3 4 6

Low Self-Monitors Strong Argument Weak Argument Expert Source Attractive Source Expert Source Attractive Source 3 1 5 2 5 5 6 4 5 5 4 4 6 6 4 3 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 7 6 2 2 3 3 4 4 6 7 4 3 2 4 6 3 7 5 5 4

8-3

2011 A. Karpinski

6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 High Self-Monitor Low Self-Monitor Strong Expert Strong Attractive Weak Expert Weak Attractive

Three-way

6

Persuasiveness

interaction

5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 Expert Attractive Expert Attractive High Self-Monitor Low Self-Monitor Strong Argument Weak Argument

8-4

2011 A. Karpinski

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Main Effects (Combined) MONITOR STRENGTH SOURCE 2-Way Interactions (Combined) MONITOR * STRENGTH MONITOR * SOURCE STRENGTH * SOURCE 3-Way Interactions MONITOR * STRENGTH * SOURCE Model Residual Total Sig.

8-5

2011 A. Karpinski

2. Interpreting Effects Interpreting main effects o The main effect of self-monitor compares the levels of self-monitoring (high vs. low) after averaging over the levels of argument strength and source of argument

Self-Monitor High Low SM Effect Mean 4.10 4.15 -0.05 Std Dev 1.40 1.43 N 48 48

o The main effect of argument strength compares the levels of argument strength (strong vs. weak) after averaging over the levels of selfmonitoring and source of argument

Strength Strong Weak Strength Effect Mean 3.63 4.63 1.00 Std Dev 1.12 1.50 N 48 48

o The main effect of source of argument compares the levels of source of argument (expert vs. attractive) after averaging over the levels of selfmonitoring and argument strength

Source Expert Attractive Source Effect Mean 4.21 4.04 0.17 Std Dev 1.43 1.40 N 48 48

8-6

2011 A. Karpinski

Interpreting two-way interactions o The self-monitor by strength of argument interaction examines the interaction of self-monitoring (high vs. low) and strength of argument (strong vs. weak) after averaging over the levels of source of argument

Is the effect of self-monitoring the same at each level of strength of argument? Is the effect of strength of argument the same at each level of self-monitoring? Self-Monitoring High Low 3.67 3.58 4.54 4.71 -0.87 -1.13

o The self-monitor by source of argument interaction examines the interaction of self-monitoring (high vs. low) and source of argument (expert vs. attractive) after averaging over the levels of strength of argument

Is the effect of self-monitoring the same at each level of source of argument? Is the effect of source of argument the same at each level of self-monitoring? Self-Monitoring High Low 3.83 4.58 4.38 3.71 -0.55 0.87

o The strength of argument by source of argument interaction examines the interaction of strength of argument (strong vs. weak) and source of argument (expert vs. attractive) after averaging over the levels of selfmonitoring

Is the effect of strength of argument the same at each level of source of argument? Is the effect of source of argument the same at each level of strength of argument? Strength of Argument Strong Weak 3.79 4.63 3.46 4.63 0.33 0.00

8-7

2011 A. Karpinski

Interpreting three-way interactions o So far, the logic and interpretation of main effects and interactions is basically the same as the two-way design o Now, lets extend this logic to a three-way interaction o The self-monitor by strength of argument by source of argument interaction examines the interaction of self-monitoring (high vs. low) and strength of argument (strong vs. weak) and source of argument (expert vs. attractive) The three-way interaction addresses the following questions: Is the strength of argument by source of argument interaction the same at each level of self-monitoring? Is the self-monitor by strength of argument interaction the same at each level of source of argument? Is the self-monitor by source of argument interaction the same at each level of strength of argument?

Lets examine each approach to the three-way interaction: Is the strength of argument by source of argument interaction the same at each level of self-monitoring?

n jkl = 12

High Self-Monitor Strength of Argument Strong Weak 4.08 3.58 3.25 5.50 0.83 2.75 -1.92

Low Self-Monitor Strength of Argument Strong Weak 3.50 5.67 3.67 3.75 -0.17 -2.09 1.92

Source

Expert Attractive

8-8

2011 A. Karpinski

Is the self-monitor by strength of argument interaction the same at each level of source of argument?

n jkl = 12

Expert Source Self-monitoring High Low 4.08 3.50 3.58 5.67 0.50 2.67 -2.17

Attractive Source Self-monitoring High Low 3.25 3.67 5.50 3.75 -2.25 -2.17 -0.08

Strength

Strong Weak

Is the self-monitor by source of argument interaction the same at each level of strength of argument?

n jkl = 12

Strong Argument Source of Argument Expert Attractive 4.08 3.25 3.50 3.67 0.58 1 -0.42

Weak Argument Source of Argument Expert Attractive 3.58 5.50 5.67 3.75 -2.09 -3.84 1.75

SelfMonitor

High Low

o Each of the different ways of examining the three-way interaction will lead to the exact same analysis and conclusion. The combination you choose to present should be based on your theory/hypotheses

8-9

2011 A. Karpinski

(Maxwell & Delaney, 1990, p 318)

Meaning Main Effects A B C Two-way Interactions A*B Comparison of marginal means of Factor A, averaging over levels of B and C Comparison of marginal means of Factor B, averaging over levels of A and C Comparison of marginal means of Factor C, averaging over levels of A and B Examines whether the A effect is the same at every level of B, averaging over levels of C Equivalently, examines whether the B effect is the same at every level of A, averaging over levels of C Examines whether the A effect is the same at every level of C, averaging over levels of B Equivalently, examines whether the C effect is the same at every level of A, averaging over levels of B Examines whether the B effect is the same at every level of C, averaging over levels of A Equivalently, examines whether the C effect is the same at every level of B, averaging over levels of A Examines whether the two-way A*B interaction is the same at every level of C Equivalently, examines whether the two-way A*C interaction is the same at every level of B Equivalently, examines whether the two-way B*C interaction is the same at every level of A

A*C

B*C

8-10

2011 A. Karpinski

Yijk = MODEL + ERROR Yijkl = + " j + # k + $ l + ( )jk + ( )jl + (#$ )kl + ( "# "$ "#$ )jkl + ! ijkl

Mean Model Components: The overall mean of the scores Main Effect Model Components: !j The effect of being in level j of Factor A !k The effect of being in level k of Factor B !l The effect of being in level l of Factor C Two-way Interaction Model Components: (!" )jk The effect of being in level j of Factor A and level k of Factor B (!" )jl The effect of being in level j of Factor A and level l of Factor C (!" )kl The effect of being in level k of Factor B and level l of Factor C Three-way Interaction Model Components: (!"# )jkl The effect of being in level j of Factor A, level k of Factor B, and level l of Factor C Error Components: ! ijk The unexplained part of the score

8-11

2011 A. Karpinski

! j = . j .. " ....

! k = ..k . " ....

b

!" j = 0

j =1

!"

k =1

=0

c

!"

l =1

=0

(!" )jk

Factor A and level l of Factor C

! ("# )jk

j =1

! ("# )

j =1

jl

! ("# )jk

k =1

! ("# )

l =1

jl

(!" )kl

! ("# ) ! ("# )

l =1 k =1 c

kl

kl

(!"# )jkl

The effect of being in level j of Factor A, level k of Factor B, and level l of Factor C

! ("#$ )

j =1

jkl

! ("#$ )

k =1

jkl

! ("#$ )

l =1

jkl

8-12

2011 A. Karpinski

SS Total (SS Corrected Total) SS Between unexplained part of the score ! ijkl The (SS Model) " ijkl = Yijkl ! MODEL SS Within (SS Error) = Yijkl $ ( + ! j + " k + # l + ( )jk + ( )jl + ("# )kl + ( !" !# !"# )jkl )

SS Main SS 2-Way SS 3-Way Effects Variance partitioning for a three-way ANOVA Interactions Interaction

SS A

SS B

SS C

SS

A*B

SS

A*C

B*C

SS Total SS

SS

A*B*C

8-13

2011 A. Karpinski

o This SS partition only holds for balanced designs o We showed the derivation of these SS formulas and how to compute them for the one-way and the two-way ANOVA case. The three-way formulas are extensions of these simpler formulas. You may find the formulas in any advanced ANOVA book (For example, see Kirk, 1995, p 441) o The math works out nicely (as we would expect) so that if we take the ratio of the MS for a component of the model over the MS error, we obtain a valid test of the model component o ANOVA table for three-way ANOVA

ANOVA Source of Variation Main effects Factor A Factor B Factor C Two-way Interactions A * B interaction A * C interaction B * C interaction Three-way Interactions A * B * C interaction Model Within Total SS SSA SSB SSC SSAB SSAC SSAB SSABC SSBet SSW SST df (a-1) (b-1) (c-1) (a-1)(b-1) (a-1)(c-1) (b-1)(c-1) MS SSA/dfa SSB/dfb SSC/dfc SSAB/dfab SSAC/dfac SSBC/dfbc F MSA/MSW MSB/MSW MSC/MSW MSAB/MSW MSAC/MSW MSBC/MSW P-value

8-14

2011 A. Karpinski

o Using SPSS

UNIANOVA dv BY monitor strength source /PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: DV Source Corrected Model Intercept MONITOR STRENGTH SOURCE MONITOR * STRENGTH MONITOR * SOURCE STRENGTH * SOURCE MONITOR * STRENGTH * SOURCE Error Total Corrected Total Type III Sum of Squares 72.833a 1633.500 4.167E-02 24.000 .667 .375 12.042 .667 35.042 115.667 1822.000 188.500 df Mean Square 10.405 1633.500 4.167E-02 24.000 .667 .375 12.042 .667 35.042 1.314 F 7.916 1242.778 .032 18.259 .507 .285 9.161 .507 26.660 Sig. .000 .000 .859 .000 .478 .595 .003 .478 .000

7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 88 96 95

Main Effects: Self-monitoring: Strength of Argument: Source of Argument: Two-way interactions: Monitoring*Strength: Monitoring*Source: Strength*Source:

F(1, 88) = 0.03, p = .86 F(1, 88) = 18.26, p < .01 F(1, 88) = 0.51, p = .48

F(1, 88) = 0.29, p = .60 F(1, 88) = 3.32, p = .02 F(1, 88) = 0.51, p = .48

8-15

2011 A. Karpinski

4. Contrasts We can perform contrasts using the same method we developed for two-way ANOVA

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

if (monitor=1 and strength=1 and source=1) group = 1. if (monitor=1 and strength=2 and source=1) group = 2. if (monitor=1 and strength=1 and source=2) group = 3. if (monitor=1 and strength=2 and source=2) group = 4. if (monitor=2 and strength=1 and source=1) group = 5. if (monitor=2 and strength=2 and source=1) group = 6. if (monitor=2 and strength=1 and source=2) group = 7. if (monitor=2 and strength=2 and source=2) group = 8.

8-16

2011 A. Karpinski

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1.

Value of Contrast -.1667 Contrast Tests

DV

Contrast Self-Monitoring

t -.178

df

88

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1.

Value of Contrast -4.0000 Contrast Tests

DV

Contrast Strength

t -4.273

df

88

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1.

Value of Contrast .6667 Contrast Tests

DV

Contrast Source

.712

df

88

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1.

Value of Contrast .5000 Contrast Tests

DV

t .534

df 88

8-17

2011 A. Karpinski

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1.

Value of Contrast -2.8333 Contrast Tests

DV

t -3.027

df 88

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 .

Value of Contrast .6667 Contrast Tests

DV

t .712

df 88

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 .

Value of Contrast 4.8333 Contrast Tests

DV

Contrast 3-way

t 5.163

df

88

8-18

2011 A. Karpinski

o We can compute all the main effect and interaction tests with contrasts because for a 2*2*2 design, all the tests are single degree of freedom tests. For more complex a*b*c designs, omnibus tests with more than 1 degree of freedom can be performed using simultaneous tests of orthogonal contrasts.

o To compute these contrasts by hand, the formulas are simple generalizations of the two-way case:

l =1 k =1 j =1

c b a

l =1 k =1 j =1

c2 jkl n jkl

Where c 2 is the squared weight for each cell jkl n jkl is the sample size for each cell MSW is MSW from the omnibus ANOVA

t~

! standard error(! )

t observed =

!!! c

jkl

MSW !!!

SS" =

"2

SSC

c

2 jkl jkl

F(1,dfw) =

dfc dfw

!!! n

SSW

SSC MSW

8-19

2011 A. Karpinski

5. Analyzing Effects Maxwell and Delaneys (1990) guidelines for analyzing effects in a threefactor design are considerably more complicated than for the two-factor design (recall p 7-59)! The principle remains the same. You must start with the highest order significant effect. You decompose these effects into simpler effects until you have an understanding of where the significant differences lie. Simple (interaction) effect o If you have a significant three-way interaction, then you need to examine the separate two-way interactions The A*B interaction at each level of C or The A*C interaction at each level of B or The B*C interaction at each level of A o APPROACH #1: In our example, we have a significant three-way interaction, so lets examine the source of argument by strength of argument interaction at each level of self-monitoring

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

8-20

2011 A. Karpinski

To examine the source of argument by strength of argument interaction for high self-monitors:

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 1 -1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 .

Contrast Tests Value of Contrast 2.7500

DV

Contrast 1

t 4.155

df

88

To examine the source of argument by strength of argument interaction for low self-monitors:

ONEWAY dv by group /CONT = 0 0 0 0 1 -1 -1 1 .

Contrast Tests Value of Contrast -2.0833

DV

Contrast 1

t -3.147

df

88

Because each of these separate two-way analyses are significant, we need to conduct additional follow-up tests - For high self-monitors: We can examine the effect of source of argument within each level of strength of argument (The main effect of source within high self-monitors and strong argument AND within high self-monitors and weak argument) - Alternately, for high self-monitors: We can examine the effect of strength of argument within each level of source of argument (The main effect of strength within high self-monitors and expert source AND within high self-monitors and attractive source) - These analyses should be repeated for low self-monitors

8-21

2011 A. Karpinski

o APPROACH #2: Alternatively, we can examine the strength of argument by self-monitoring interaction at each level of source of argument

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

-1

Using contrasts:

Contrast Tests Value of Contrast 2.6667 -2.1667

DV

t 4.029 -3.273

df

88 88

8-22

2011 A. Karpinski

o APPROACH #3: Alternatively, we can examine the source of argument by self-monitoring interaction at each level of strength of argument

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

Using contrasts:

Contrast Tests Value of Contrast 1.0000 -3.8333

DV

t 1.511 -5.791

df

88 88

o We should not take all three approaches; only one is necessary. The choice you make should be the one that makes the most sense for your theory/hypotheses o If significant, each of these simple effects tests requires follow-up tests. Follow-up tests to simple effects tests are sometimes called simple, simple effects. (Im not kidding!).

8-23

2011 A. Karpinski

o For approach 3, we found No significant self-monitoring by source interaction for strong messages, F(1,88) = 2.28, p = .13. A significant self-monitoring by source interaction for weak messages, F(1,88) = 33.54, p < .01. We need to conduct follow-up tests to interpret this simple interaction effect.

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

n jkl = 12

Source

Expert Attractive

Using Contrasts:

Contrast Tests Contrast High Monitor, Weak Message Low Monitor, Weak Message Value of Contrast -1.9167 -1.9167 Std. Error .46804 .46804 t -4.095 -4.095 df 88 88 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000

DV

An alternative to the simple effect approach is the contrast-based approach. o The traditional approach conducts 7 uncorrected omnibus tests, so we are allowed 7 uncorrected planned contrasts. If you have more than 7 planned contrasts, you must use the Bonferroni correction. o Post-hoc tests can be conducted using Tukey HSD or Scheff to keep

! EW = .05

8-24

2011 A. Karpinski

6. Effect sizes Formulas for partial omega-squared are easily adapted to a three-factor design:

" (2EFFECT ) = SS (effect ) ! [df (effect )]MSWithin SS (effect ) + [N ! df (effect )]MSWithin

For example, to compute the proportion of variance accounted for by the three-way interaction in our persuasion example

(2A*B*C ) = SS ( ABC ) [df ( ABC )]MSWithin SS ( ABC ) + [N df ( ABC )]MSWithin

35.042 ! (1)1.314 = .21 35.042 + [ ! 1] .314 96 1

" (2A*B*C ) =

8-25

2011 A. Karpinski

7. Higher-order ANOVA The logic we developed for two- and three-factor ANOVA can be easily extended to four-factor, five-factor and even higher order ANOVAs By now you have seen how the formulas generalize so that you can compute values for any order design Interpretation of a three-factor ANOVA is tricky enough. Things get very hairy for higher order ANOVAs. o For example, a significant four-way interaction (A*B*C*D) indicates that the three way A*B*C interaction is not the same at each level of D or that the three way A*B*D interaction is not the same at each level of C or . . . o We saw that to graph a three-way 2*2*2 interaction, we had to graph two separate two-way interactions To graph a four-way 2*2*2*2 interaction, we would have to graph four separate two-way interactions! To graph a five-way 2*2*2*2*2 interaction, we would have to graph eight separate two-way interactions! o Remember when you design a study, you will need to be able to analyze, understand, and present the results. It is rare that a person can clearly present a four-way interaction in a manner that the audience can understand. Beware of conducting designs that are too complex! As the number of factors increases, the number of omnibus tests increases rapidly. Because the convention is to use ! = .05 for each omnibus test, the probability of making a type one error is high for a multi-factor ANOVA

Number of Main Factors Effects 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 Number of Two-way Three-way Four-way Five-way Total Number Interactions Interactions Interactions Interactions of tests 1 3 3 1 7 6 4 1 15 10 10 5 1 31

As a result, do not be surprised if you are asked to replicate the results of your multi-factor ANOVA.

8-26

2011 A. Karpinski

8. Example: A 3*3*2 design Consider an experiment comparing three types of therapy for modifying snake phobia o Factor A Degree of Phobia: Mild, Moderate, Severe o Factor B Type of Therapy: Desensitization, Implosion, Insight o Factor C Gender: Male, Female o DV = Post-test scores on the Behavioral Avoidance Test (higher scores indicate less phobia)

Desensitization Mild Moderate Severe Females 10 12 10 12 9 11 13 10 9 Males 16 11 12 14 13 11 17 15 13 Implosion Mild Moderate Severe 15 12 6 12 10 7 14 11 5 17 14 10 18 13 9 16 12 11 Insight Mild Moderate Severe 13 11 10 9 7 6 11 8 8 16 10 11 12 12 10 14 14 9

25

Implosion

Insight

Desensitization

Female

Desensitization

Male

8-27

Implosion

Insight

2011 A. Karpinski

UNIANOVA dv BY treat phobia gender /PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: DV Source Corrected Model Intercept TREAT PHOBIA GENDER TREAT * PHOBIA TREAT * GENDER PHOBIA * GENDER TREAT * PHOBIA * GENDER Error Total Corrected Total Type III Sum of Squares 368.167a 7141.500 22.333 183.000 115.574 39.333 .259 1.815 5.852 83.333 7593.000 451.500 df Mean Square 21.657 7141.500 11.167 91.500 115.574 9.833 .130 .907 1.463 2.315 F 9.356 3085.128 4.824 39.528 49.928 4.248 .056 .392 .632 Sig. .000 .000 .014 .000 .000 .006 .946 .679 .643

17 1 2 2 1 4 2 2 4 36 54 53

We have a treatment by phobia interaction, F(4, 36) = 4.25, p = .006 We have a main effect of gender, F(1, 36) = 49.93, p < .001 o We also have main effects for treatment and for phobia, but we should refrain from interpreting them because of the higher order interaction o We may interpret the main effect of gender because gender is not involved in any higher order interactions Lets start with the main effect of gender. This analysis reveals the effect of gender averaging across type of treatment and severity of phobia.

Gender Female Male Gender Effect Mean 10.04 12.96 -2.92 Std Dev 2.52 2.56 N 27 27

o This analysis tells us that men show less post-test phobia than women, averaging across type of treatment and severity of phobia. Because this test has only 1 df, no follow-up tests are necessary

8-28 2011 A. Karpinski

Now, lets turn to the treatment by phobia interaction. This analysis tells us that the main effect for treatment differs by the degree of phobia, averaging across gender.

16 14 12 10 8 Mild Moderate Degree of Phobia Severe Desensitization Implosion Insight

Treatment

Degree of Phobia Moderate Severe 11.67 11.00 12.00 8.00 10.33 9.00

o To understand this interaction, we can examine the simple effect of degree of phobia within each type of treatment

Treatment Desens. Implosion Insight Mild 13.67 15.33 12.50 Degree of Phobia Moderate Severe 11.67 11.00 12.00 8.00 10.33 9.00

To control the Type 1 error rate across the three simple effects tests, we can use the Bonferroni adjustment:

! FW =

.05 = 0.0167 3

8-29

2011 A. Karpinski

These simple effect tests will be two-degrees of freedom tests. We can not test these hypotheses with a single contrast. If we have homogeneous variances, we can use the UNIANOVA command.

UNIANOVA dv BY gender treat phobia /EMMEANS = TABLES(phobia*treat) COMPARE (phobia) /PRINT = DESCRIPTIVE.

(output omitted) Simple effect of degree of phobia for participants who received desensitization treatment:

F (2,36) = 4.99, p = 0.012 F (2,36) = 4.99, p < 0.05

(with Bonferroni correction)

Simple effect of degree of phobia for participants who received implosion treatment:

F (2,36) = 34.94, p < .001 F (2,36) = 34.94, p < 0.05

(with Bonferroni correction)

Simple effect of degree of phobia for participants who received insight treatment:

F (2,36) = 8.09, p = .001 F (2,36) = 8.09, p < 0.05

(with Bonferroni correction)

8-30

2011 A. Karpinski

o We have found significant simple effects of degree of phobia for participants who received desensitization, implosion or the insight treatments. These are omnibus tests, so we could perform Tukey posthoc tests to identify the differences.

if (treat=1 and phobia=1 and gender=1) group = 1. if (treat=1 and phobia=2 and gender=1) group = 2. if (treat=1 and phobia=3 and gender=1) group = 3. ... ... if (treat=3 and phobia=1 and gender=2) group = 16. if (treat=3 and phobia=2 and gender=2) group = 17. if (treat=3 and phobia=3 and gender=2) group = 18.

(output omitted) o We end up with the following description of an interaction: There is a simple effect of degree of phobia for participants who received desensitization and for insight treatment. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that treatment is significantly better for mild cases than severe cases. There is a simple effect of degree of phobia for participants who received implosion treatment. Tukey post-hoc tests revealed mild phobic responded better than moderate phobic who responded better than severe phobics (with all pairwise differences significant)

8-31

2011 A. Karpinski

o Remember, we also could have decompose the treatment by phobia interaction by examining the simple effect of treatment within each degree of phobia

(But this analysis is left as an exercise for the reader)

16 14 12 10 8 Desensitization Implosion Insight Mild Moderate Severe

o However, notice how much easier these results would have been to explain had the treatment by phobia interaction not been significant. (We would be left with three main effects.) o The moral of the story is that you should not just add extra factors just to see what might happen. You want to design as concise a study as possible while still testing your hypotheses.

8-32

2011 A. Karpinski

- Running on EmptyÎncărcat deMostafa Mahmoud Hashem
- Froid Accounting CaseÎncărcat delouiegoods24
- Bio Statistical Analysis 5th Edition by Jerrold H Zar - Hands Down Best Statistics TextÎncărcat deSabri Altunkaya
- Two Way Anova (18 Ms Pt Amd 03, 18 Ms Pt Amd 14)Încărcat deEngr Mujahid Iqbal
- Guide to ANOVAÎncărcat dePappu Kapali
- reg1rptÎncărcat deCésar Rodríguez Peralta
- AnovaÎncărcat debrianmore10
- mp2Încărcat deunwell_08
- NR_2016032115485006Încărcat deAmalia Nur Latifah
- Disposition Toward Thinking CriticallyÎncărcat deIoana Andrei
- Housing Market ReportÎncărcat deannajparish
- Abdul Ghani Impact of Advanced Manufacturing Technology on Organizational Structure 2002Încărcat deJessica Liu
- Factorial Designs2Încărcat deddmoorthi
- CHEM 29 HW STATISTICAL ANALYSISÎncărcat deMarianne Faith Hadap
- AnovaÎncărcat derhodain
- Ashish Report Intern Summer'13Încărcat deluckydhruv
- Ten Steps - FullÎncărcat deLamont Mccoy
- Antropometria de manoÎncărcat demisaelron
- bloquesvsondulante_decathletasÎncărcat dePaco Parra Plaza
- 331157505-RCBD.pdfÎncărcat deEsamul Haq
- Investigation of volatile organic pollutants in atmospheric air in Tehran and acetylene pollutants in Tehran qanat watersÎncărcat deresearchinbiology
- 0824753887Încărcat de8511323
- 22ANOVAmixed.pdfÎncărcat deHoracio Miranda Vargas
- AnovaÎncărcat deSandeep Mohan
- AnovaÎncărcat deMuhammad Haziq Taqiuddin
- Exploring the Existence of Size Effect an Empirical Investigation on NSEÎncărcat dearcherselevators
- Lab 4Încărcat deMarawele
- NET Psycho II Dec 2009Încărcat defandus
- GPOWERÎncărcat deSeptian Rekal
- Popcorn Part 2Încărcat dekhemrajmahadew

- Welcome to Lily's Place _ 26-933Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- 1887_info.pdfÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Sustainability 09 00664Încărcat deasdas
- lÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- NPSH MarginÎncărcat deKCFUNG
- 2-GettingStartedWithOpenFOAM.pdfÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Fulltext StampedÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- ansysÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- https___support.ansys.com_portal_site_AnsysCustomerPortal_template.fss_file=_prod_docu_15.0_ANSYS+ICEM+CFD+Tutorial+ManualÎncărcat deaguirreto
- 6622436Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Surge CalculationsÎncărcat decordo
- Analysis of Airfoil-323 (1)Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- CFD Computations of the Second Round of MEXICO RotÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- aerospace-04-00046-v2Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- 18 Appendix Q Security ReportÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- 2017 Green Combustion Chemistry 2017 Lesson 1Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Sustainability 10 00939Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Kaufmann - Genetic Programming - An IntroductionÎncărcat degjorhugull
- 11837_002912154103.pdfÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- SNU CHEM LEC 1Încărcat deccami709
- Pds Staadpro Ltr 0617 Hr fÎncărcat deMassa Sebatian
- 2 - Basics.key.pdfÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- L1_IntroÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Chapter 03 (1)Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- 2013 Computational Fluid Dynamics for Architectural DesignÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- CFD8Încărcat deIjaz Fazil
- [Doi 10.1007%2F978!3!642-41714-6_163774] Herrmann, Helmut; Bucksch, Herbert -- Dictionary Geotechnical Engineering_Wörterbuch GeoTechnik __ Primary Blind ValleyÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil
- Topic 1 Numerical Simulation of Cavitating Flows Using OpenfoamÎncărcat deKumar Byes
- ME5302 Assignment 1aÎncărcat deIjaz Fazil

- Content Analysis - IntroductionÎncărcat deSalwa Ibrahim
- Book Complete - LT FinalÎncărcat deYolanda Onea
- HeteroskedasticityÎncărcat debisma_aliyyah
- Degrees of Freedom: A Correction to Chi-Square for Physical HypothesesÎncărcat deJohn Michael Williams
- Statistics Midterm OutlineÎncărcat deczeng2731
- DissertationÎncărcat deKaaĩ Waweru Ngotho
- SJBMS-24B433-445Încărcat deShilvia Aulia Tiffany
- Testing for Normality using SPSS.pdfÎncărcat deΧρήστος Ντάνης
- RM,,,,,,Încărcat deFarhanAwaisi
- Deseration GL BcpsÎncărcat deAzmal Kabir Sarker
- 2.) T-Test for Differences of Two Means (Mean Gain)Încărcat dencm_cit
- anova.pdfÎncărcat deVishnu Nagpal
- Abdelsalam Bryant& Smith (2007)an Examination of the Comprehensiveness of Corporate Internet Reporting Provided by London-Listed CompaniesÎncărcat derr
- Probabilistic ThinkingÎncărcat deAnonymous OCDJg17Z
- Statistics Teachers GuideÎncărcat deRichard John
- The Impacts of Tariff Rate Import Quotas on Market Access 2Încărcat deAli Husanen
- THE EFFECT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE, INDIVIDUAL CAPABILITY, AND MOTIVATION ON AUDITOR PERFORMANCE WITH REWARD AS THE MODERATING VARIABLE.Încărcat deIJAR Journal
- R.1 VariousHypoTestAnswrsÎncărcat deArthur Chen
- The Architectural and Group Development Method-An Experimentation-QUTE04Încărcat deMoises Gonzalez-Garcia
- Hypothesis pptÎncărcat desrikant
- math 1040 projectÎncărcat deapi-256036722
- Effectiveness of Occupational Therapy Intervention InÎncărcat deUmmu Solihah
- Udacity Statistics NotesÎncărcat deEm Pie
- Amondo(ID12248)_MC308 - Major Project ReportÎncărcat deAbraham Mondo
- Syllabus MBA HR- 2012-14Încărcat deMona Hablani
- PSTime11 GuidepstimeÎncărcat deFederico Sciascia
- 03-1 Methods for Sensory TestingÎncărcat deAH MENG
- Handout # 4 - Hypothesis Testing IIÎncărcat dejunaid_256
- Pre Manufacturing Delays in Garments UnitÎncărcat dethegodkannan
- Statistics Definitions from Pagano textbookÎncărcat deIngenious Angel

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.