An introduction to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with special reference to data from clinical experiments in optometry

This article is aimed primarily at eye care practitioners who are undertaking advanced clinical research, and who wish to apply analysis of variance (ANOVA) to their data. ANOVA is a data analysis method of great utility and flexibility. This article describes why and how ANOVA was developed, the basic logic which underlies the method and the assumptions that the method makes for it to be validly applied to data from clinical experiments in optometry. The application of the method to the analysis of a simple data set is then described. In addition, the methods available for making planned comparisons between treatment means and for making post hoc tests are evaluated. The problem of determining the number of replicates or patients required in a given experimental situation is also discussed. Copyright (C) 2000 The College of Optometrists.

The application of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to different experimental designs in optometry

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the most efficient method available for the analysis of experimental data. Analysis of variance is a method of considerable complexity and subtlety, with many different variations, each of which applies in a particular experimental context. Hence, it is possible to apply the wrong type of ANOVA to data and, therefore, to draw an erroneous conclusion from an experiment. This article reviews the types of ANOVA most likely to arise in clinical experiments in optometry including the one-way ANOVA ('fixed' and 'random effect' models), two-way ANOVA in randomised blocks, three-way ANOVA, and factorial experimental designs (including the varieties known as 'split-plot' and 'repeated measures'). For each ANOVA, the appropriate experimental design is described, a statistical model is formulated, and the advantages and limitations of each type of design discussed. In addition, the problems of non-conformity to the statistical model and determination of the number of replications are considered. © 2002 The College of Optometrists.

Statnote 23: Non-parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA)

To carry out an analysis of variance, several assumptions are made about the nature of the experimental data which have to be at least approximately true for the tests to be valid. One of the most important of these assumptions is that a measured quantity must be a parametric variable, i.e., a member of a normally distributed population. If the data are not normally distributed, then one method of approach is to transform the data to a different scale so that the new variable is more likely to be normally distributed. An alternative method, however, is to use a non-parametric analysis of variance. There are a limited number of such tests available but two useful tests are described in this Statnote, viz., the Kruskal-Wallis test and Friedmann’s analysis of variance.

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 9: The one-way analysis of variance (random effects model)

There is an alternative model of the 1-way ANOVA called the 'random effects' model or ‘nested’ design in which the objective is not to test specific effects but to estimate the degree of variation of a particular measurement and to compare different sources of variation that influence the measurement in space and/or time. The most important statistics from a random effects model are the components of variance which estimate the variance associated with each of the sources of variation influencing a measurement. The nested design is particularly useful in preliminary experiments designed to estimate different sources of variation and in the planning of appropriate sampling strategies.

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 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.

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.

Analysis of cardiac and epileptic signals using higher order spectra

The theory of nonlinear dyamic systems provides some new methods to handle complex systems. Chaos theory offers new concepts, algorithms and methods for processing, enhancing and analyzing the measured signals. In recent years, researchers are applying the concepts from this theory to bio-signal analysis. In this work, the complex dynamics of the bio-signals such as electrocardiogram (ECG) and electroencephalogram (EEG) are analyzed using the tools of nonlinear systems theory. In the modern industrialized countries every year several hundred thousands of people die due to sudden cardiac death. The Electrocardiogram (ECG) is an important biosignal representing the sum total of millions of cardiac cell depolarization potentials. It contains important insight into the state of health and nature of the disease afflicting the heart. Heart rate variability (HRV) refers to the regulation of the sinoatrial node, the natural pacemaker of the heart by the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches of the autonomic nervous system. Heart rate variability analysis is an important tool to observe the heart's ability to respond to normal regulatory impulses that affect its rhythm. A computerbased intelligent system for analysis of cardiac states is very useful in diagnostics and disease management. Like many bio-signals, HRV signals are non-linear in nature. Higher order spectral analysis (HOS) is known to be a good tool for the analysis of non-linear systems and provides good noise immunity. In this work, we studied the HOS of the HRV signals of normal heartbeat and four classes of arrhythmia. This thesis presents some general characteristics for each of these classes of HRV signals in the bispectrum and bicoherence plots. Several features were extracted from the HOS and subjected an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test. The results are very promising for cardiac arrhythmia classification with a number of features yielding a p-value < 0.02 in the ANOVA test. An automated intelligent system for the identification of cardiac health is very useful in healthcare technology. In this work, seven features were extracted from the heart rate signals using HOS and fed to a support vector machine (SVM) for classification. The performance evaluation protocol in this thesis uses 330 subjects consisting of five different kinds of cardiac disease conditions. The classifier achieved a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 89%. This system is ready to run on larger data sets. In EEG analysis, the search for hidden information for identification of seizures has a long history. Epilepsy is a pathological condition characterized by spontaneous and unforeseeable occurrence of seizures, during which the perception or behavior of patients is disturbed. An automatic early detection of the seizure onsets would help the patients and observers to take appropriate precautions. Various methods have been proposed to predict the onset of seizures based on EEG recordings. The use of nonlinear features motivated by the higher order spectra (HOS) has been reported to be a promising approach to differentiate between normal, background (pre-ictal) and epileptic EEG signals. In this work, these features are used to train both a Gaussian mixture model (GMM) classifier and a Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier. Results show that the classifiers were able to achieve 93.11% and 92.67% classification accuracy, respectively, with selected HOS based features. About 2 hours of EEG recordings from 10 patients were used in this study. This thesis introduces unique bispectrum and bicoherence plots for various cardiac conditions and for normal, background and epileptic EEG signals. These plots reveal distinct patterns. The patterns are useful for visual interpretation by those without a deep understanding of spectral analysis such as medical practitioners. It includes original contributions in extracting features from HRV and EEG signals using HOS and entropy, in analyzing the statistical properties of such features on real data and in automated classification using these features with GMM and SVM classifiers.

Analysis of the effect of yoga on selective attention and mental concentration in young adults

Gemstone Team Om

Memorability as a measure of processing: a unit analysis of prose and list learning.

The percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature. The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)