Statnote 12: the split-plot analysis of variance

In some experimental situations, the factors may not be equivalent to each other and replicates cannot be assigned at random to all treatment combinations. A common case, called a ‘split-plot design’, arises when one factor can be considered to be a major factor and the other a minor factor. Investigators need to be able to distinguish a split-plot design from a fully randomized design as it is a common mistake for researchers to analyse a split-plot design as if it were a fully randomised factorial experiment.

Statnote 13: a more complex analysis of variance incorporating a 'repeated measures' factor

Experiments combining different groups or factors and which use ANOVA are a powerful method of investigation in applied microbiology. ANOVA enables not only the effect of individual factors to be estimated but also their interactions; information which cannot be obtained readily when factors are investigated separately. In addition, combining different treatments or factors in a single experiment is more efficient and often reduces the sample size required to estimate treatment effects adequately. Because of the treatment combinations used in a factorial experiment, the degrees of freedom (DF) of the error term in the ANOVA is a more important indicator of the ‘power’ of the experiment than the number of replicates. A good method is to ensure, where possible, that sufficient replication is present to achieve 15 DF for the error term of the ANOVA testing effects of particular interest. Finally, it is important to always consider the design of the experiment because this determines the appropriate ANOVA to use. Hence, it is necessary to be able to identify the different forms of ANOVA appropriate to different experimental designs and to recognise when a design is a split-plot or incorporates a repeated measure. If there is any doubt about which ANOVA to use in a specific circumstance, the researcher should seek advice from a statistician with experience of research in applied microbiology.

The use of analysis of variance (ANOVA) in applied microbiology

Experiments combining different groups or factors and which use ANOVA are a powerful method of investigation in applied microbiology. ANOVA enables not only the effect of individual factors to be estimated but also their interactions; information which cannot be obtained readily when factors are investigated separately. In addition, combining different treatments or factors in a single experiment is more efficient and often reduces the number of replications required to estimate treatment effects adequately. Because of the treatment combinations used in a factorial experiment, the DF of the error term in the ANOVA is a more important indicator of the ‘power’ of the experiment than the number of replicates. A good method is to ensure, where possible, that sufficient replication is present to achieve 15 DF for each error term of the ANOVA. Finally, it is important to consider the design of the experiment because this determines the appropriate ANOVA to use. Some of the most common experimental designs used in the biosciences and their relevant ANOVAs are discussed by. If there is doubt about which ANOVA to use, the researcher should seek advice from a statistician with experience of research in applied microbiology.

Data analysis methods in optometry Part 4: an introduction to analysis of variance (ANOVA)

In any investigation in optometry involving more that two treatment or patient groups, an investigator should be using ANOVA to analyse the results assuming that the data conform reasonably well to the assumptions of the analysis. Ideally, specific null hypotheses should be built into the experiment from the start so that the treatments variation can be partitioned to test these effects directly. If 'post-hoc' tests are used, then an experimenter should examine the degree of protection offered by the test against the possibilities of making either a type 1 or a type 2 error. All experimenters should be aware of the complexity of ANOVA. The present article describes only one common form of the analysis, viz., that which applies to a single classification of the treatments in a randomised design. There are many different forms of the analysis each of which is appropriate to the analysis of a specific experimental design. The uses of some of the most common forms of ANOVA in optometry have been described in a further article. If in any doubt, an investigator should consult a statistician with experience of the analysis of experiments in optometry since once embarked upon an experiment with an unsuitable design, there may be little that a statistician can do to help.

Data methods in optometry Part 9: experimental design and analysis of variance

The key to the correct application of ANOVA is careful experimental design and matching the correct analysis to that design. The following points should therefore, be considered before designing any experiment: 1. In a single factor design, ensure that the factor is identified as a 'fixed' or 'random effect' factor. 2. In more complex designs, with more than one factor, there may be a mixture of fixed and random effect factors present, so ensure that each factor is clearly identified. 3. Where replicates can be grouped or blocked, the advantages of a randomised blocks design should be considered. There should be evidence, however, that blocking can sufficiently reduce the error variation to counter the loss of DF compared with a randomised design. 4. Where different treatments are applied sequentially to a patient, the advantages of a three-way design in which the different orders of the treatments are included as an 'effect' should be considered. 5. Combining different factors to make a more efficient experiment and to measure possible factor interactions should always be considered. 6. The effect of 'internal replication' should be taken into account in a factorial design in deciding the number of replications to be used. Where possible, each error term of the ANOVA should have at least 15 DF. 7. Consider carefully whether a particular factorial design can be considered to be a split-plot or a repeated measures design. If such a design is appropriate, consider how to continue the analysis bearing in mind the problem of using post hoc tests in this situation.

Orbit and altimetric corrections for the ERS satellites through analysis of single and dual satellite crossovers

Due to the failure of PRARE the orbital accuracy of ERS-1 is typically 10-15 cm radially as compared to 3-4cm for TOPEX/Poseidon. To gain the most from these simultaneous datasets it is necessary to improve the orbital accuracy of ERS-1 so that it is commensurate with that of TOPEX/Poseidon. For the integration of these two datasets it is also necessary to determine the altimeter and sea state biases for each of the satellites. Several models for the sea state bias of ERS-1 are considered by analysis of the ERS-1 single satellite crossovers. The model adopted consists of the sea state bias as a percentage of the significant wave height, namely 5.95%. The removal of ERS-1 orbit error and recovery of an ERS-1 - TOPEX/Poseidon relative bias are both achieved by analysis of dual crossover residuals. The gravitational field based radial orbit error is modelled by a finite Fourier expansion series with the dominant frequencies determined by analysis of the JGM-2 co-variance matrix. Periodic and secular terms to model the errors due to atmospheric density, solar radiation pressure and initial state vector mis-modelling are also solved for. Validation of the dataset unification consists of comparing the mean sea surface topographies and annual variabilities derived from both the corrected and uncorrected ERS-1 orbits with those derived from TOPEX/Poseidon. The global and regional geographically fixed/variable orbit errors are also analysed pre and post correction, and a significant reduction is noted. Finally the use of dual/single satellite crossovers and repeat pass data, for the calibration of ERS-2 with respect to ERS-1 and TOPEX/Poseidon is shown by calculating the ERS-1/2 sea state and relative biases.

Statnote 30 : The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA):fixed effects model

In Statnote 9, we described a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) ‘random effects’ model in which the objective was to estimate the degree of variation of a particular measurement and to compare different sources of variation in space and time. The illustrative scenario involved the role of computer keyboards in a University communal computer laboratory as a possible source of microbial contamination of the hands. The study estimated the aerobic colony count of ten selected keyboards with samples taken from two keys per keyboard determined at 9am and 5pm. This type of design is often referred to as a ‘nested’ or ‘hierarchical’ design and the ANOVA estimated the degree of variation: (1) between keyboards, (2) between keys within a keyboard, and (3) between sample times within a key. An alternative to this design is a 'fixed effects' model in which the objective is not to measure sources of variation per se but to estimate differences between specific groups or treatments, which are regarded as 'fixed' or discrete effects. This statnote describes two scenarios utilizing this type of analysis: (1) measuring the degree of bacterial contamination on 2p coins collected from three types of business property, viz., a butcher’s shop, a sandwich shop, and a newsagent and (2) the effectiveness of drugs in the treatment of a fungal eye infection.

Income distribution dependence of poverty measure:a theoretical analysis

Using a modified deprivation (or poverty) function, in this paper, we theoretically study the changes in poverty with respect to the 'global' mean and variance of the income distribution using Indian survey data. We show that when the income obeys a log-normal distribution, a rising mean income generally indicates a reduction in poverty while an increase in the variance of the income distribution increases poverty. This altruistic view for a developing economy, however, is not tenable anymore once the poverty index is found to follow a pareto distribution. Here although a rising mean income indicates a reduction in poverty, due to the presence of an inflexion point in the poverty function, there is a critical value of the variance below which poverty decreases with increasing variance while beyond this value, poverty undergoes a steep increase followed by a decrease with respect to higher variance. Identifying this inflexion point as the poverty line, we show that the pareto poverty function satisfies all three standard axioms of a poverty index [N.C. Kakwani, Econometrica 43 (1980) 437; A.K. Sen, Econometrica 44 (1976) 219] whereas the log-normal distribution falls short of this requisite. Following these results, we make quantitative predictions to correlate a developing with a developed economy. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.