After a multivariate test, it is often desired to know more about the specific groups to find out if they are significantly different or similar. This step after analysis is referred to as 'post-hoc analysis' and is a major step in hypothesis testing. One common and popular method of post-hoc analysis is Tukey's Test. The test is known by several different names. Tukey's test compares the means of all treatments to the mean of every other treatment and is considered the best available method in cases when confidence intervals are desired or if sample sizes are unequal.
The Kruskal-Wallis test extends the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for more than two groups. The test is nonparametric similar to the Mann-Whitney test and as such does not assume the data are normally distributed and can, therefore, be used when the assumption of normality is violated. This example will employ the Kruskal-Wallis test on the
PlantGrowthdataset as used in previous examples. Although the data appear to be approximately normally distributed as seen before, the Kruskal-Wallis test performs just as well as a parametric test.
MANOVA, or Multiple Analysis of Variance, is an extension of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to several dependent variables. The approach to MANOVA is similar to ANOVA in many regards and requires the same assumptions (normally distributed dependent variables with equal covariance matrices).
ANOVA, or Analysis of Variance, is a commonly used approach to testing a hypothesis when dealing with two or more groups. One-way ANOVA, which is what will be explored in this post, can be considered an extension of the t-test when more than two groups are being tested. The factor, or categorical variable, is often referred to as the 'treatment' in the ANOVA setting. ANOVA involves partitioning the data's total variation into variation between and within groups. This procedure is thus known as Analysis of Variance as sources of variation are examined separately.
There are two procedures for forming simultaneous confidence intervals, the Working-Hotelling and Bonferroni procedures. Each estimates intervals of the mean response using a family confidence coefficient. The Working-Hotelling coefficient is defined by \(W\) and Bonferroni \(B\). In practice, it is recommended to perform both procedures to determine which results in a tighter interval. The Bonferroni method will be explored first.
Consider a data set of 144 observations of household cats. The data contains the cats' gender, body weight and height. Can we model and accurately predict the gender of a cat based on previously observed values using logistic regression?
Hierarchical clustering is a widely used and popular tool in statistics
In the first post on factor analysis, we examined computing the estimated covariance matrix \(S\) of the rootstock data and proceeded to find two factors that fit most of the variance of the data. However, the variables in the data are not on the same scale of measurement, which can cause variables with comparatively large variances to dominate the diagonal of the covariance matrix and the resulting factors. The correlation matrix, therefore, makes more intuitive sense to employ in factor analysis.
The goal of factor analysis, similar to principal component analysis, is to reduce the original variables into a smaller number of factors that allows for easier interpretation. PCA and factor analysis still defer in several respects. One difference is principal components are defined as linear combinations of the variables while factors are defined as linear combinations of the underlying latent variables.
Page 1 / 1