1981
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.90.2.367
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of two strategies for analysis of variance in nonorthogonal designs.

Abstract: The Appelbaum and Cramer comparison of models strategy for analysis of data from nonorthogonal designs is compared with the Overall and Spiegel Method 1 general linear model analysis. Data were generated by Monte Carlo methods to include known true analysis of variance (ANOVA) main and interaction effects. In the presence of a true but nonsignificant interaction, estimates of main effect parameters derived from the Method 1 general linear model analysis were significantly closer to the true values. Greater acc… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, Hays (1983) argued that it is inappropriate to interpret main effects in the presence of a statistically significant interaction effect. Others, on the other hand, argue that main effects are meaningful in the presence of significant interactions, when interpreted as the average effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable (e.g., Overall, Lee, & Hornik, 1981). In line with de Lange et al, we will study both main and interaction effects, the latter interpreted as the average effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…However, Hays (1983) argued that it is inappropriate to interpret main effects in the presence of a statistically significant interaction effect. Others, on the other hand, argue that main effects are meaningful in the presence of significant interactions, when interpreted as the average effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable (e.g., Overall, Lee, & Hornik, 1981). In line with de Lange et al, we will study both main and interaction effects, the latter interpreted as the average effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…A Type III (i.e. unique) sum-of-squares approach was used for the analyses due to unequal cell sizes in the design (Hays, 1988;Overall, Lee, & Hornick, 1981;Overall & Spiegel, 1969). Simple effects and simple comparison tests were used to further investigate any significant interaction effects (Keppel, 1982;Myers, 1979;Winer, 1971).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We include the rim characteristics × food size interaction term in the primary analysis model, to obtain an unbiased estimate of the main effect of rim characteristics, as recommended in the statistical literature (32-35). The interaction between rim characteristic and depicted food portion size tested whether the probability of picking the test stimulus (i.e.…”
Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multi-level logistic regression examined the main effect of rim characteristic on the probability of choosing a depicted food size compared to the standard stimulus across rim characteristics, adjusting for the fixed effects of depicted test stimulus food size, food type, the rim characteristics by food size interaction, and a random effect for within person variation. We include the rim characteristics × food size interaction term in the primary analysis model, to obtain an unbiased estimate of the main effect of rim characteristics, as recommended in the statistical literature ( 32 - 35 ). The interaction between rim characteristic and depicted food portion size tested whether the probability of picking the test stimulus (i.e.…”
Section: Methods and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%