Research Article Volume 3 Issue 5
1Department of Industrial Mathematics and Applied Statistics, Ebonyi State University, Nigeria
2Department of Statistics, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeriash
Correspondence: Okeh UM, Department of Industrial Mathematics and Applied Statistics, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki Nigeria
Received: April 03, 2016 | Published: May 23, 2016
Citation: Okeh UM, Oyeka ICA. Dummy variable multiple regression analysis of matched samples. Biom Biostat Int J. 2016;3(5):158-165. DOI: 10.15406/bbij.2016.03.00077
This paper presents and discuses the use of dummy variable multiple regression techniques in the analysis of samples drawn from several related or dependent populations ordinarily appropriate for random effects and mixed effects derived from the two factor analysis of variances model with one observation per-cell or treatment combinations. Using the extra sum of squares principle the method develops necessary sums of squares, degrees of freedom and the F-ratios required to test the significance of factor level effects thereby helping to resolve the problem of one observation per treatment combination, encountered in the usual two factor analysis of variance models with one observation per cell. The method provides estimates of the overall and factor mean effects comparable to those obtained with the two factor analysis of variance methods. In addition, the method also provides estimates of the total or absolute effects as well as the direct and indirect effects of the independent variables or factors on the dependent or criterion variable which are not ordinarily obtainable with the usual analysis of variance techniques. The proposed method compares favorably with the usual Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance test by ranks using some sample data.
Keywords: friedman’s two-way ANOVA, mixed–effects ANOVA, dummy variable, regression, extra sum of square, treatment
Dummy variable analysis of variance technique is an alternative approach to the non-parametric Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance test by ranks used to analyze sample data appropriate for use in parametric statistics for two factor random and mixed effects or analysis of variance models with one replication or observation per treatment combinations.1,2
To develop a non-parametric alternative method for the analysis of matched samples that are appropriate for use with two factor random and mixed-effects analysis of variance models with only one observation per cell or treatment combination, we may suppose that a researcher has collected a random sample of size ’a’ observations randomly drawn from a population ‘A’ of subjects or blocks of subjects exposed to or observed at some ‘c’ time periods, points in space, experimental conditions, tests, or treatments that are either fixed or randomly drawn from population B experimental conditions, points in time, tests or experiments comprising numerical measurements.
The proposed method
Let yij be the ith observation drawn from population A, that is the observation on the ith subject or block of subjects exposed to or observed at the jth level of factor B that is jth treatment or time period for i=1,2,…,a; j=1,2,…,c.
Now to set up a dummy variable multiple regression model for use with a two factor analysis of variance problem, we as usual present each factor or the so called parent independent variable with one dummy variable of 1s and 0s less than the number of its categories or levels.2 Thus factor A, namely subject or block of subjects with ‘a’ levels is represented with a-1 dummy variables of 1s and 0s, while factor B with c levels is represented by c-1 dummy variables of 1s and 0s.
Hence we may let
xi;A={1,if yij is an observation on the ith subject or block of subjects and jth level offactor B (treatment)0,otherwisefor i=1,2,...,a−1;and all j=1,2,...,c (1)
Also letxj;B={1,if yij is an observation or response at the jth level offactor B (treatment) and ith level of factor A(subject,or block of subjects)0,otherwisefor j=1,2,...c−1;and all i=1,2,...,a. (2)
Then the resulting dummy variable multiple regression model fitting or regressing the dependent or criterion variable yij on the dummy variables representing factors A (subject or block of subjects) and B (treatment) is
yl=β0+β1;Axl1;A+β2;Axl2;A+......+βα−1;Axlα−1;A+β1;Bxl1;B+β2;Bxl2;B+....+βc−1;Bxlc−1;B+ei (3)
For l=1,2,…,n=a.c sample observations where yl is the lth response or observation on the criterion or dependent variable; xls are dummy variables of 1s and 0s representing levels of factors A and B; βls are partial regression coefficients and els are error terms, with E(ei)=0 ,for l=1,2,…,n=a.c . Note that since there are only one observation per row by column, that is factor A (subject or block of subjects) by factor B (treatment) combination; for one to be able to have an estimate for the error sum of squares for the regression model, and hence be able to test desired hypotheses, it is necessary to assume that there are no factors A by B interactions or that such interactions have been removed by an appropriate data transformation. Also note that an advantage of the present method over the extended median test for dependent or matched samples and also over the Friedmans two –way analysis of variance test by ranks is that the problem of tied observations within subjects or blocks of subjects does not arise, and hence unlike in the other two non-parametric methods under reference there is no need to find ways to adjust for or break ties between scores within blocks of subjects.3 The expected or mean value of the criterion variable is from equation 3.
E(yl)=β0+β1;Axl1;A+β2;Axl2;A+....+βα−1;Axlα−1;A+β1;Bxl1;B+β2;Bxl2;B+....+βc−1;Bxlc−1;B (4)
To find the expected or mean effect of any of the factors or parent independent variables, we set all the dummy variables representing that factor equal to 1 and all the other dummy variables found in equation 4 equal to 0.Thus for example the expected or mean effect or value of factor A (subject or block of subjects) on the dependent variable is obtained by setting xl;A=1 and xj;B=0 in equation 4 for l=1,2,…,a−1;j=1,2,…,c−1 .
Similarly the expected or mean value of factor B (treatment) is obtained by setting xl;B=1 and xj;A=0 in equation 4 for l=1,2,…,c−1;j=1,2,…,a−1 thereby obtaining
E(yl;A)=β0+a−1∑l=1βl;A and E(yl;B)=β0+c−1∑l=1βl;B (5)
Now the dummy variable multiple regression model of equation 3 can equivalently be expressed in matrix form as
y_=Xβ_+e_ (6)
Where y_ is an nx1 column vector of observations or scores on the dependent or criterion variables; X is an nxr design matrix of ‘r’ dummy variables of 1s and 0s; β_ is an rx1 column vector of partial regression coefficients; and e_ is on nx1 column vector of error terms, with E(e_)=0_ where ‘n’=a.c observations and ‘n’=(a-1)+(c-1)=a+c-2 dummy variables of 1s and 0s included in the regression model.
Similarly the expected value of y_ is from equation 4.
E(y_)=X.β_ (7)
Application of the usual methods of least squares to either equation 3 or 6 yields an unbiased estimate of the regression parameter β_ as
ˆβ_=b_=(X′X)−1X′y_ (8)
Where (X′X)−1 is the inverse matrix of the non-singular variance-covariance matrix X′X . A hypothesis that is usually of research interest is that the regression model of either equation 3 or 6 fits, or equivalently that the independent variables or factors have no effects on the dependent or criterion variable, meaning that the partial regression coefficient is equal to zero stated symbolically that we have the null hypothesis.
H0:β_=0_ versus H1:β_≠0_ (9)
As in equation 3 this null hypothesis is tested using the usual F-test presented in an analysis of variance Table where the total sum of squares is calculated in the usual way as
SSTotal=y′_y_−n.ˉy2 (10)
With n-1=a.c-1 degrees of freedom where ˉy is the mean value of the dependent variables.
Similarly the treatment sum of squares in analysis of variance parlance which is the same as the regression sum of squares in regression models is calculated as
SSTreatment=SSR=b′_.X′.y_−n.ˉy2 (11)
With (a-1)+(c-1) =a+c-2 degrees of freedom. The error sum of squares SSE indicates the difference between the total sum of squares, SST and the sum of squares regression SSR; thus,
SSE=SST−SSR=y′_y_−b′_X′.y_ (12)
With (a.c−1)−((a−1)+(c−1))=(a−1)(c−1) degrees of freedom.
These results are summarized in an analysis of variance Table (Table 1)
The null hypotheses H0 of Equation 13 is tested using the F-ratio of Table 1. The null hypothesis is rejected at the if the calculated F-ratio is greater than the tabulated or critical F-ratio at a specified α -level of significance, otherwise the null hypothesis H0 is accepted.
If the model fits, that if not all the elements of β are equal to zero, that is if the null hypothesis H0 of equation 9 is rejected, then one may proceed to test further hypothesis concerning factor level effects, that is one may proceed to test the null hypothesis that factors A (subject or block of subjects) and B (treatment) separately have no effects on the dependent or criterion variable. In other words, the null hypotheses
H0:β_A=0_ versus H1:β_A≠0_andH0:β_B=0_ versus H1:β_B≠0_ (13, 14)
Where β_A and β_B are respectively the (a-1) and (c-1) vectors of partial regression coefficients or effects of factor A (subject or block of subjects) and B (treatment) on the criterion or dependent variable. However a null hypothesis that is usually of greater interest here is that of equation 14, that is that treatments, points in time or space of tests or experiments do not have differential effects on subjects.
Source of variation |
Sum of squares |
Degrees of freedom |
Mean sum of squares |
F-ratio |
Regression(treatment) |
SSR=b′_.X′.y_−n.ˉy2 |
a+c-2 |
MSR=SSRa+c−2 |
MSRMSE |
Error |
SSE=y′_y_−b′_X′.y_ |
(a-1)(c-1) |
MSE=SSE(a−1)(c−1) |
|
Total |
SST=y′_y_−n.ˉy2 |
(a.c)-1 |
Table 1 Two factor analysis of variance Table for the full model of Equation 6
Now to obtain appropriate test statistics for use in testing these null hypothesis we apply the extra sum of squares principle to partition the treatment or regression sum of squares SSR into its two component parts namely, the sum of squares due to factor A (subject or block of subjects), SSA and the sum of squares due to factor B (treatment), SSB, to enable the calculation of the appropriate F-ratios.
Now the nxr matrix X for the full model of equation 6 can be partitioned into its two component sub-matrices namely XA , an nx(a-1) design matrix of a-1 dummy variables of 1s and 0s representing the included a-1 levels of factor A (subject or block of subjects) and XB , an nx(c-1) matrix of the c-1 dummy variables of 1s and 0s representing the included c-1 levels of factor B (treatment). The partial regression coefficient b_ , estimated being an rx1 column vector of regression effects of equation 8 can also be partitioned into the corresponding partial regression coefficients estimated such as, b_A ,which is an (a-1)x1 column vector of partial regression coefficients or effects of factor A and b_B which is a (c-1)x1 column vector of the effects of factor B on the dependent variable. Hence the treatment sum of squares SST, that is the sum of squares regression SSR of equation 11 can be equivalently expressed as
SSTreatment=SSR=b′_X′y_−n.ˉy2=(Xb_)′.y_−n.ˉy2;equivalently asSSR=((XA XB)|b_Ab_B|)′y_−n.ˉy2=(b′_A.X′A.y_+b′_B.X′B.y_)−n.ˉy2 (15)
or equivalently
SSR=b′_X′y_−n.ˉy2=(b′_A.X′A.y_−n.ˉy2)+(b′_B.X′B.y_−n.ˉy2)+n.ˉy2 (16)
Which when interpreted is the same as the statement
SSTreatment=SSR=SSA+SSB+SS(ˉy=ˆμ)
(17)
Where SSR is the sum of squares of regression for the full model with r=a+c-2 degrees of freedom; SSA is the sum of squares due to factor A (subject or block of subject); with a-1 degrees of freedom; SSB is the sum of squares due to factor B (treatment) with c-1 degrees of freedom; and SS(ˉy=ˆμ) is an additive correction factor due to mean effect. These sums of squares namely SSR, SSA and SSB are obtained by separately fitting the full model of equations 6 with X, and the reduced regression models of XA and XB again separately on the criterion or dependent variable y_ .
Now if the full model of equation 6 fits, that is if the null hypothesis of equation 9 is rejected, then the additional null hypotheses of equations 13 and 14 may be tested using the extra sum of squares principle.4,5 If we denote the sums of squares due to the full model of equation 6 and the reduced models due to the fitting of the criterion variables y_ to any of the reduced design matrices XA and XB by SS(F) and SS(R) respectively then following the extra sum of squares principle4,5 the extra sum of squares due to a given factor is calculated as
ESS=SS(F)−SS(R) (18)
With degrees of freedom obtained as the difference between the degrees of freedom of SS(F) and SS(R); that is as Edf=df(F)-df(R). Thus the extra sums of squares for factors A (subject or block of subjects) and B (treatment) are obtained as follows respectively
ESSA=SSR−SSA;ESSB=SSR−SSB (19)
With (a−1)+(c−1)−(a−1)=b−1 degrees of freedom and (a−1)+(b−1)−(b−1)=a−1 degrees of freedom.
Note that since each of the reduced models and the full model have the same total sum of squares SST, the extra sum of squares may alternatively be obtained as the difference between the error sum of squares of each reduced model and the error sum of squares of the full model. In other words, the extra sum of squares is equivalently calculated as ESS=SS(F)−SS(R)=SST−SS(F)−SST−SS(R)=SSE(R)−SSE(F) (20)
With degrees of freedom similarly obtained. Thus the extra sum of squares due to factors A (subject or block of subjects) and B (treatment) are alternatively obtained as follows respectively. ESSA=SSEA−SSE (21)
With c-1 and a-1 degrees of freedom. Where SSR and SSE are respectively the regression sum of squares and the error sum of squares for the full model and SSEA and SSEB are respectively the error sums of squares for the reduced models for factors A and B. The null hypotheses of equations 13 and 14 are tested using the F-ratios
FA=MESAMSE (22)
With a-1 and (a-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom where
MESA=ESSAc−1 (23)
Is the mean extra sum of squares due to factor A (subject or block of subjects) and
FB=MESBMSE (24)
With a-1 and (a-1)(c-1) degrees of freedom where
MESB=ESSBa−1 (25)
Is the mean extra sum of squares due to factor B (treatment).These results are summarized in Table 2a which for ease of presentation also includes the sum of squares and other values of Table 1 for the full models.
If the various F–ratios and in particular the F-ratios based on the extra sums of squares of Table 2b indicate that the independent variables or factor levels have differential effects on the response, dependent, or criterion variable, that is if the null hypotheses of either equation 13 or 14 or both are rejected, then one may proceed further to estimate desired factor level effects and test hypotheses concerning them.
Source of variation |
Sum of squares (SS) |
Degrees of freedom(DF) |
Mean sum of squares(MS) |
F-ratio |
Full model |
||||
Regression |
SSR=b_′X′y_−n.ˉy2 |
a+c-2 |
MSR=SSRa+c−2 |
F=MSRSSR |
Error |
MCEP0028 |
(a-1)(c-1) |
MSE=SSE(a−1)(c−1) |
|
Factor A (Subjects on block of subjects) |
||||
Regression |
SSA=b_′AX′Ay_−n.ˉy2 |
a-1 |
MSA=SSAa−1 |
|
Error |
|
a(c-1) |
MSEA=MSAa(c−1) |
|
Factor B(Treatment) |
||||
Regression |
SSB=b_′BX′By_−n.ˉy2 |
c-1 |
MSB=SSBc−1 |
F=MSBMSEB |
Error |
SSEB=y_′y_−b_′BX′By_ |
c(a-1) |
MSEB=MSEBc(a−1) |
|
Total |
y_′y_−n.ˉy2 |
a.c-1 |
Table 2a Table showing two factor Analysis of Variance for Sums of Squares for the full model and due to reduced models and other statistics
Extra sum of squares (ESS=SS(F)-SS(R) |
Degrees of freedom(DF) |
Extra mean sum of squares (EMSA) |
F-ratio |
ESR=SSR |
a+c−2 |
EMSR=SSRa+c−2 |
F=MSRMSE |
ESER=SSE |
(a-1)(c-1) |
EMSE=SSE(a−1)(c−1) |
|
Factor A |
|||
ESSA=SSR-SSA |
c-1 |
EMSA=ESSAc−1 |
FA=EMSAMSE |
ESSEA=SSEA-SSE=ESSA |
c-1 |
EMSEA=ESSEAc−1 |
|
Factor B |
|||
ESSB=SSR-SSB |
a-1 |
EMSB=ESSBa−1 |
FB=EMSBMSE |
ESSEB=SSEB-SSE=ESSB |
a-1 |
EMSEB=ESSEBa−1 |
|
y_′y_−n.ˉy2 |
a.c-1 |
Table 2b Two-factor Analysis of Variance Table for the Extra sums of Squares due to reduced models and other statistics (Continuation)
In fact an additional advantage of using dummy variable regression models in two factor or multiple factor analysis of variance type problems is that the method also more easily enables the estimation of factor level effects separately of several factors on a specified dependent or criterion variable. For example it enables the estimation of the total or absolute effect, the partial regression coefficient or the so called direct effect of a given independent variable here referred to as the parent independent variable on the dependent variable through the effect of its representative dummy variables as well as the indirect effect of that parent independent variable through the mediation of other independent variables in the model.6 The total or absolute effect of a parent independent variable on a dependent variable is estimated as the simple regression coefficient of that independent variable represented by codes assigned to its various categories when regressed on the dependent variable. The direct effect of a parent independent variable on a dependent variable is the weighted sum of the partial regression coefficients or effects of the dummy variables representing that parent independent variable on the dependent variable where the weights are the simple regression coefficients of each representative dummy variable regressing on the specified parent independent variable represented by codes. The indirect effect of a given parent independent variable on a dependent variable is then simply the difference between its total and direct effects.6
Now the direct effect or partial regression coefficient of a given parent independent variable on a dependent variable is obtained by taking the partial derivative of the expected value of the corresponding regression model with respect to that parent independent variable. For example the direct effect of the parent independent variable ‘A’ say on the dependent variable Y is obtained from equation 5 as
βAdir=dE(yi)dA=a−1∑l=1βl;A.dE(xl;A)dA+∑lβl;Z.dE(xl;Z)dAorβAdir=a−1∑l=1βl;A.dE(xl;A)dAsince∑lβl;Z.dE(xl;Z)dA=0 (26)
For all other independent variable ‘z’ in the model different from ‘A’.
The weight αl;A=dE(xl;A)dA is estimated by fitting a simple regression line of dummy variable. xl;A regressing on its parent independent variable, A represented by codes and taking the derivative of its expected value with respect to ‘A’. Thus, if the expected value of the dummy variable xl;A regressing on its parent independent variable ‘A’ is expressed as E(xl;A)=α0+αl;A.A
Then the derivative of this expected value with respect to A is
dE(xl;A)dA=αl;A (27)
Hence using Equation 27 in Equation 26 gives the direct effect of the parent independent variable A on the dependent variable Y as
βAdir=a−1∑l=1αl;A.βl;A (28)
Whose sample estimate is from Equation 8
ˆβAdir=bAdir=a−1∑l=1αl;A.bl;A (29)
The total or absolute effect of ‘A’ on ‘Y’ is estimated as the simple regression coefficient or effect of the parent independent variable ‘A’ represented by codes on the dependent variable ‘Y’ as
ˆβA=bA (30)
Where bA is the estimated simple regression coefficient or effect of ‘A’ on ‘Y’. The indirect effect of ‘A’ on ‘Y’ is then estimated as the difference between bA and bAdir , that is as
ˆβAindir=bAindir= bA−bAdir (31)
The total, direct and indirect effects of factor B are similarly estimated.
The body weights of a random sample of 10 Broilers here termed “ subject or block of subjects” regarded as factor ‘A’ with ten levels and types of weighing machine here termed “treatment” regarded as factor ‘B’ with five levels are shown below.
To set up a dummy variable regression model of body weight (y) regressing on “subject or block of subjects” here termed factor ‘A’ with ten levels and types of weighing machine, here termed “treatments” treated as factor ‘B’ with five levels, we as usual represent factor ‘A’ with nine dummy variables of 1s and 0s and factor ‘B’ with four dummy variables of 1s and 0s, using Equation 1.
The resulting design matrix ‘X’ for the full model is presented in Table 3 where x1;A represents level 1 or broiler No.1; x2;A represents levels 9 or broiler No.9 and so on. Similarly x1;B represents weighing machine No.1 or treatment 1, x2;B represents weighing machine No.2 or treatment 2 and so on, until x4;B represents weighing machine No.4 or treatment 4.
Using the design matrix X of Table 3 for the full model of Equation 6 we obtain the fitted regression Equation expressing the dependent of broiler body weight on, that is as a function of broiler (subject) treated as factor A and type of weighing machine (treatment) treated as factor B, both represented by dummy variables of 1s and 0s, as
ˆyl=2.302−0.593xl1;A+3.175xl2;A+0.212xl3;A−2.023xl4;A−1.491xl5;A+0.352xl6;A −1.219xl7;A+0.123xl8;A−2.185xl9;A−0.094xl1;B−0.235xl2;B+2.329xl3;B−0.029xl4;B
Now to estimate the total or absolute effect of type of weighing machine (treatment), ‘B; or body weight y of broilers, we regress yi on ‘B’ represented by codes to obtain ˆβB=bB=0.054 . The weights αj;B to be applied to Equation 6 to determine the direct effect are obtained as explained above by taking the derivative with respect to ‘B’ of the expected value of the simple regression equation expressing the dependence of the dummy variable xij of 1s and 0s on its parent variable ‘B’ represented by codes yielding
α1;B=−0.20;α2;B=−0.10;α3;B=0.00 and α4;B=0.10 .
Using these values in Equation 6, we obtain with Equation 6 the partial or the so called direct effect of type of weighing machine (treatment) ‘B’ on body weight ‘y’ of broilers as
ˆβBdir=bBdir=(−0.094×−0.2)+(−0.235×−0.10)+(0.00×2.329)+(−0.029×0.10)ˆβBdir=bBdir =0.0394
Hence the corresponding indirect effect is estimated using Equation 6 as
ˆβBindir=bBindir=0.0146 .
The total or absolute, direct and indirect effects of the subjects or block of subjects called factor A are similarly calculated.
It would for comparative purpose be instructive to also analyze the data of example 1 using Friedman two-way analysis of variance test by ranks.
To do this we first rank for each broiler (subject) the body weight as obtained using the five weighing machines (treatment) from the smallest ranked ‘1’ to the largest ranked ‘5’. All tied body weights for each broiler are as usual assigned their mean ranks. The results are presented in Table 4.
Using the ranks shown in Table 4, we calculate the Friedmans test statistic as
χ2=12rc(c+1)c∑j=1R2.j−3r(c+1)=12(132+332+272+40.52+36.52)(10)(5)(5+1)−3(10)(5+1)=198.38−180=17.38
Which with c-1=5-1=4 degrees of freedom is statistically significant (χ20.99;4=13.277) ,indicating that weighing machines probability differ in the values of body weights of broilers obtained using them. This is the same conclusion that is also reached using the present method.
S/no (l) |
Body weight (yi) |
xlo
|
xl1;A
1 |
xl2;A
2 |
xl3;A
3 |
xl4;A
4 |
xl5;A
5 |
xl6;A
6 |
xl7;A
7 |
xl8;A
8 |
xl9;A
9 |
xl1;B
1 |
xl2;B
2 |
xl3;B
3 |
xl4;B
4 |
1 |
1.9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2.1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
4 |
2.1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
1.9 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
1.7 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
8 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
10 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
11 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
13 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
14 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
15 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
16 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
17 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
19 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
20 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
21 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
22 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
23 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
24 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
25 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
26 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
27 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
28 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
29 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
30 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
31 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
32 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
33 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
34 |
2.2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
35 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
36 |
1.7 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
37 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
38 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
39 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
40 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
41 |
1.8 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
42 |
1.9 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
43 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
44 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
45 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
46 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
48 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
49 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
50 |
2.1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 3 Design matrix for the sample data of example 1
Body weight(treatment) |
|||||
Broiler(subject) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
1.5 |
3 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
1.5 |
2 |
1 |
3.5 |
2 |
5 |
3.5 |
3 |
1.5 |
4 |
1.5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
3.5 |
2 |
3.5 |
5 |
2.5 |
1 |
2.5 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
1 |
4.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
4.5 |
9 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4.5 |
4.5 |
10 |
1.5 |
4 |
1.5 |
4 |
4 |
Total |
13 |
33 |
27 |
40.5 |
36.5 |
Table 4 Ranks of body weights of broilers in Table 1
This paper has proposed the use of dummy variable multiple regression methods for the analysis of several related or dependent samples appropriate for random effects and mixed effects two factor analysis of variance with one observation per cell or treatment combination.
Using the extra sum of squares principle, the method developed necessary sums of squares, degrees of freedom and the F-ratios required in testing for the significance of factor level effects.
The method provided estimates of the overall and factor mean effects comparable to those obtained with the two factor analysis of variance method. In addition the method also provided estimates of the total or absolute effects as well as the direct and indirect effects of the independent variables or factors on the dependent or criterion variable which are not ordinarily obtainable with the usual analysis of variance techniques. The proposed method is illustrated with some sample data and shown to compare favorably with the usual Friedmans two-way analysis of variance test by ranks often used for the same purpose.
None.
Author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.
©2016 Okeh, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.
2 7