1 of 29 advanced experimental methods and statistics mixed model anova michael j. kalsher © 2014...
TRANSCRIPT
1 of 29
Advanced Experimental Methods and
Statistics
Mixed Model ANOVA
Michael J. Kalsher
© 2014 Michael Kalsher
2 of 29
Outline
• Introduction to Mixed Model Designs• Lab and practice data sets
3 of 29
Sample ProblemAn adult attachment researcher reads an article which shows that insecure attachment can exert physiological effects on children, including negatively impacting their quality of sleep.
The researcher decides to investigate whether similar effects may occur in married couples. Previous research had indicated that periods of almost any kind of anxiety or stress are also associated with sleep disturbances, such a reduction in deep (delta) sleep. Stressed individuals exhibit a tendency toward less and lighter sleep.
The researcher conducts a study to determine whether the presence of a person’s spouse while sleeping reduces the presence of sleep disturbances in individuals who are stressed.
4 of 29
MethodParticipants. 30 women who had recently moved to a new area to begin new jobs with their spouses. Among the women, 10 are secure, 10 are anxious, and 10 are avoidant in their attachment styles.
Procedure. The sleep patterns of the 30 women are monitored while they sleep alone and while they sleep with their spouses. The DV is the overall percentage of time spent in deep delta sleep.
Design. Two-way mixed ANOVA with one within-subjects factor and one between-groups factor. Partner-proximity (sleep with spouse vs. sleep alone) is the within-subjects factor; Attachment style is the between-subjects factor.
H1: Subjects will experience significantly greater sleep disturbances in the absence of their spouses due to the stressful nature of their present circumstances.
H2: Subjects with secure attachment styles will derive comfort from the presence of their spouses and will experience significantly more deep delta sleep than subjects with insecure attachment styles.
5 of 29
Data View
6 of 29
Variable View
7 of 29
Step 1
Step 2
8 of 29
Step 3 Step 4
9 of 29
Step 5 Why add these two factors? Why not add “Partner”?
Step 6
10 of 29
11 of 29
Homogeneity Assessment
12 of 29
Main effect of Partner
Partner x Attachment Style Interaction
Note:Partner “1” = Sleeping Partner AbsentPartner “2” = Sleeping Partner Present
Main Analyses: Repeated Measures
13 of 29
Can you find the source of the interaction?
Secure Anxious Avoidant
AttachStyle
Partner Absent
Partner Present
Per
cen
t T
ime
in D
elta
Sle
ep
14 of 29
19.7
15.716.8
15 of 29
Critical Values for F
16 of 29
The statistics instructor at a local college is interested in examining whether students’ scores on their stats exams are influenced systematically by the time of testing, the course instructor (there were three different instructors), or whether the course is required (some crazy students in other majors opt to take the course!). Students took a pre-test at the beginning of the term, a midterm and a final.
Which procedures will you use to analyze the data? What is/are the Independent Variable(s)? Dependent Variable?
What are the results?
Mixed Model ANOVA: Sample Problem
17 of 29
Subject Pretest Midterm Final Instruct Required
1 56 64 69 1 0
2 79 91 89 1 0
3 68 77 81 1 0
4 59 69 71 1 1
5 64 77 75 1 1
6 74 88 86 1 1
7 73 85 86 1 1
8 47 64 69 2 0
9 78 98 100 2 0
10 61 77 85 2 0
11 68 86 93 2 1
12 64 77 87 2 1
13 53 67 76 2 1
14 71 85 95 2 1
15 61 79 97 3 0
16 57 77 89 3 0
17 49 65 83 3 0
18 71 93 100 3 1
19 61 83 94 3 1
20 58 75 92 3 1
21 58 74 92 3 1
18 of 29
Mixed-Model ANOVA: Variable View
19 of 29
Mixed-Model ANOVA: Data View
20 of 29
21 of 29
22 of 29
Descriptive Statistics: what’s going on?
23 of 29
Main Analyses: Repeated-measures
24 of 29
Post-hoc Tests: Decomposing the Main Effect of Time-of-Test
25 of 29
Post-hoc Tests: Decomposing the Instructor x Time-of-test
Interaction
26 of 29
Post-hoc Tests: Decomposing the Instructor x Time-of-test
Interaction
27 of 29
Main Analysis: Between-Subjects Variables
28 of 29
Writing up the ResultsMauchly’s test indicated that the sphericity assumption was violated for the main effect of Time-of-test, 2(2)=14.96, p<.01. Therefore, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = .60).
There was a significant main effect of Time-of-testing, F(1.20,18.11)=868.21, p<.01, partial eta-squared = .98. Test scores increased consecutively from the pre-test (M=63.14, SE=2.04) to the Midterm (M=78.4, SE=2.38) to the Final exam (M=85.96, SE=1.99). Post-hoc tests using the Bonferroni procedure revealed significant differences between all three times of testing, p’s<.01. The large effect size estimate suggests the observed increases in test performance over time were substantial.
There was also a significant interaction effect between Time-of-testing and Instructor, F(3.39,25.40)=62.37, p<.01, partial eta-squared = .89. As shown in Figure 1, the difference in exam scores among the three instructors was greater for the Final Exam than for either the Pretest or the Midterm.
29 of 29
Figure 1. The difference in student test performance among the three instructors was significantly greater for the Final exam than for the Pretest or Midterm.