Statnote 31:analysis of covariance

Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) is a useful method of ‘error control’, i.e., it can reduce the size of the error variance in an experimental or observational study. An initial measure obtained before the experiment, which is closely related to the final measurement, is used to adjust the final measurements, thus reducing the error variance. When this method is used to reduce the error term, the X variable must not itself be affected by the experimental treatments, because part of the treatment effect would then also be removed. Hence, the method can only be safely used when X is measured before an experiment. A further limitation of the analysis is that only the linear effect of Y on X is being removed and it is possible that Y could be a curvilinear function of X. A question often raised is whether ANCOVA should be used routinely in experiments rather than a randomized blocks or split-plot design, which may also reduce the error variance. The answer to this question depends on the relative precision of the difference methods with reference to each scenario. Considerable judgment is often required to select the best experimental design and statistical help should be sought at an early stage of an investigation.

Estimating the SCAN*PRO model of store sales: HB, FM or just OLS?

In this paper we investigate whether consideration of store-level heterogeneity in marketing mix effects improves the accuracy of the marketing mix elasticities, fit, and forecasting accuracy of the widely-applied SCAN*PRO model of store sales. Models with continuous and discrete representations of heterogeneity, estimated using hierarchical Bayes (HB) and finite mixture (FM) techniques, respectively, are empirically compared to the original model, which does not account for store-level heterogeneity in marketing mix effects, and is estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS). The empirical comparisons are conducted in two contexts: Dutch store-level scanner data for the shampoo product category, and an extensive simulation experiment. The simulation investigates how between- and within-segment variance in marketing mix effects, error variance, the number of weeks of data, and the number of stores impact the accuracy of marketing mix elasticities, model fit, and forecasting accuracy. Contrary to expectations, accommodating store-level heterogeneity does not improve the accuracy of marketing mix elasticities relative to the homogeneous SCAN*PRO model, suggesting that little may be lost by employing the original homogeneous SCAN*PRO model estimated using ordinary least squares. Improvements in fit and forecasting accuracy are also fairly modest. We pursue an explanation for this result since research in other contexts has shown clear advantages from assuming some type of heterogeneity in market response models. In an Afterthought section, we comment on the controversial nature of our result, distinguishing factors inherent to household-level data and associated models vs. general store-level data and associated models vs. the unique SCAN*PRO model specification.

On the relationship between Bayesian error bars and the input data density

We investigate the dependence of Bayesian error bars on the distribution of data in input space. For generalized linear regression models we derive an upper bound on the error bars which shows that, in the neighbourhood of the data points, the error bars are substantially reduced from their prior values. For regions of high data density we also show that the contribution to the output variance due to the uncertainty in the weights can exhibit an approximate inverse proportionality to the probability density. Empirical results support these conclusions.

Statnote 10: the two-way analysis of variance

The two-way design has been variously described as a matched-sample F-test, a simple within-subjects ANOVA, a one-way within-groups ANOVA, a simple correlated-groups ANOVA, and a one-factor repeated measures design! This confusion of terminology is likely to lead to problems in correctly identifying this analysis within commercially available software. The essential feature of the design is that each treatment is allocated by randomization to one experimental unit within each group or block. The block may be a plot of land, a single occasion in which the experiment was performed, or a human subject. The ‘blocking’ is designed to remove an aspect of the error variation and increase the ‘power’ of the experiment. If there is no significant source of variation associated with the ‘blocking’ then there is a disadvantage to the two-way design because there is a reduction in the DF of the error term compared with a fully randomised design thus reducing the ‘power’ of the analysis.

Statnote 11: the two-factor analysis of variance

Experiments combining different groups or factors 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 degrees of freedom (DF) of the error term in the ANOVA is a more important indicator of the ‘power’ of the experiment than simply 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, in a factorial experiment, it is important to define the design of the experiment in detail because this determines the appropriate type of ANOVA. We will discuss some of the common variations of factorial ANOVA in future statnotes. If there is doubt about which ANOVA to use, the researcher should seek advice from a statistician with experience of research in applied microbiology.

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.

The influence on unaided vision of age, pupil diameter and spherocylindrical refractive error

Background - The aim was to derive equations for the relationship between unaided vision and age, pupil diameter, iris colour and sphero-cylindrical refractive error. Methods - Data were collected from 663 healthy right eyes of white subjects aged 20 to 70 years. Subjective sphero-cylindrical refractive errors ranged from -6.8 to +9.4 D (mean spherical equivalent), -1.5 to +1.9 D (orthogonal component, J0) and -0.8 to 1.0 D (oblique component, J45). Cylinder axis orientation was orthogonal in 46 per cent of the eyes and oblique in 18 per cent. Unaided vision (-0.3 to +1.3 logMAR), pupil diameter (2.3 to 7.5 mm) and iris colour (67 per cent light/blue irides) was recorded. The sample included mostly females (60 per cent) and many contact lens wearers (42 per cent) and so the influences of these parameters were also investigated. Results - Decision tree analysis showed that sex, iris colour, contact lens wear and cylinder axis orientation did not influence the relationship between unaided vision and refractive error. New equations for the dependence of the minimum angle of resolution on age and pupil diameter arose from step backwards multiple linear regressions carried out separately on the myopes (2.91.scalar vector +0.51.pupil diameter -3.14 ) and hyperopes (1.55.scalar vector + 0.06.age – 3.45 ). Conclusion - The new equations may be useful in simulators designed for teaching purposes as they accounted for 81 per cent (for myopes) and 53 per cent (for hyperopes) of the variance in measured data. In comparison, previously published equations accounted for not more than 76 per cent (for myopes) and 24 per cent (for hyperopes) of the variance depending on whether they included pupil size. The new equations are, as far as is known to the authors, the first to include age. The age-related decline in accommodation is reflected in the equation for hyperopes.