similar to: drop1, 2-way Unbalanced ANOVA

I have a three-way unbalanced ANOVA that I need to calculate (fixed effects plus interactions, no random effects). But word has it that aov() is good only for balanced designs. I have seen a number of different recommendations for working with unbalanced designs, but they seem to differ widely (car, nlme, lme4, etc.). So I would like to know what is the best or most usual way to go about working

Hello R-users, I am trying to obtain Type III SS for an ANOVA with subsampling. My design is slightly unbalanced with either 3 or 4 subsamples per replicate. The basic aov model would be: fit <- aov(y~x+Error(subsample)) But this gives Type I SS and not Type III. But, using the drop() option: drop1(fit, test="F") I get an error message: "Error in

Dear experts, I just noticed that I get different results conducting type III anova using drop1 or the Anova command from the car package. I suppose I made a mistake and hope you can offer me some help. I have no idea where I got wrong and would be very grateful for explaination as R is new terrain for me. If I run the commands in line, they produce the same results. But if I run them in

Hi I am performing an analysis of variance with two factors, each with two levels. I have differing numbers of observations in each of the four combinations, but all four combinations *are* present (2 of the factor combinations have 3 observations, 1 has 4 and 1 has 5) I have used both anova(aov(...)) and anova(lm(...)) in R and it gave the same result - as expected. I then plugged this into

Hello everybody, I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R particularly. I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated if you answer it in a simple way. 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() function for lm() or aov() models in R implements Type I sum of squares (sequential), which is not well suited for unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better

Hello All, Am having some trouble computing Type III SS in a Cox Regression using either drop1 or Anova from the car package. Am hoping that people will take a look to see if they can tell what's going on. Here is my R code: cox3grp <- subset(survData, Treatment %in% c("DC", "DA", "DO"), c("PTNO", "Treatment", "PFS_CENSORED",

I would like to do a SS type III analysis on a proportional odds logistic regression model. I use drop1(), but dropterm() shows the same behaviour. It works as expected for regular main effects models, however when the model includes an interaction effect it seems to have problems with matching the parameters to the predictor terms. An example: library("MASS"); options(contrasts =

Dear all: I m a newer on R.? I have some problem when I use?anova function.? I use anova function to get Type I SS results, but I also need to get Type III SS results.? However, in my code, there is some different between the result of Type I SS and Type III SS.? I don?t know why the ?seqe? factor disappeared in the result of Type III SS.? How can I do?? Here is my example and result.

Hello, I have a problem with selecting the right type of sums of squares for an ANCOVA for my specific experimental data and hypotheses. I do have a basic understanding of the differences between Type-I, II, and III SSs, have read about the principle of marginality, and read Venable's "Exegeses on Linear Models" (http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS3/Exegeses.pdf). I am pretty new to

Hi, I was wondering why anova() and drop1() give different tail probabilities for F tests. I guess overdispersion is calculated differently in the following example, but why? Thanks for any advice, Tom For example: > x<-c(2,3,4,5,6) > y<-c(0,1,0,0,1) > b1<-glm(y~x,binomial) > b2<-glm(y~1,binomial) > drop1(b1,test="F") Single term deletions Model: y ~

Dear R Core Team I've a proposal to improve drop1(). The function should change the contrast from the default ("treatment") to "sum". If you fit a model with an interaction (which ist not signifikant) and you display the main effect with drop1( , scope = .~., test = "F") If you remove the interaction, then everything's okay. There is no way to fit a

Hi, If I used drop1 in a weighted lm fit, it seems to ignore the weights in the AIC calculation of the dropped terms, see the example below. Can this be right? Yan -------------------- library(car) > unweighted.model <- lm(trSex ~ (river+length +depth)^2- length:depth, dno2) > Anova(unweighted.model) Anova Table (Type II tests) Response: trSex Sum Sq Df F value

Hi, I have an unbalanced dataset on which I would like to perform a one-way anova test using R (aov). According to Wannacott and Wannacott (1990) p. 333, one-way anova with unbalanced data is possible with a few modifications in the anova-calculations. The modified anova calculations should take into account different sample sizes and a modified definition of the average. I was wondering if the

Dear all, I have been trying to investigate the behaviour of different weights in weighted regression for a dataset with lots of missing data. As a start I simulated some data using the following: library(MASS) N <- 200 sigma <- matrix(c(1, .5, .5, 1), nrow = 2) sim.set <- as.data.frame(mvrnorm(N, c(0, 0), sigma)) colnames(sim.set) <- c('x1', 'x2') # x1 & x2 are

Dear R-list members, I've been struggling with the proper setup for analysing my data. I've performed a route choice experiment, in which participants had to make a choice at each junction for the next road. During the experiment they received traffic information, but also encountered two different accidents. They also made trips without accidents. What I'm interested in is to

Hello Everyone, *Question: *How do you calculate the sum of squares for a two-way _unbalanced_ ANOVA? *What I have done:* I have found many useful tutorials online for running a balanced two-way ANOVA but I haven't had much luck for running a unbalanced two-way ANOVA. From what I have read, the trouble with running an unbalanced two-way ANOVA, is that things get tricky when calculating

Dear R Help, I have noticed some inconsistent behaviour of add1 and drop1 with a weighted linear model, which affects the interpretation of the results. I have these data to fit with a linear model, I want to weight them by the relative size of the geographical areas they represent. _________________________________________________________________________________________ > example

Hi, I'm still trying to figure out that GLM procedure in SAS. Let's start with the simple example: PROC GLM; MODEL col1 col3 col5 col7 col9 col11 col13 col15 col17 col19 col21 col23 =/nouni; repeated roi 6, ord 2/nom mean; TITLE 'ABDERUS lat ACC 300-500'; That's the same setup that I had in my last email. I have three factors: facSubj,facCond and facRoi. I had this pretty

Hello, I'd like to propose an extension to the function summary.aov. In Splus (2000, I don't know about other versions), summary.aov allows a parameter ssType to be set to 1 or 3 (defaults to 1) to choose the type of Sums of Squares. I know I can get Type III SS in R with drop1(model), but including the functionality into summary.aov would, in my opinion, - yield a more usable table

the data is : >table.8.3<-data.frame(expand.grid( marijuana=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes")), cigarette=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes")), alcohol=factor(c("Yes","No"),levels=c("No","Yes"))), count=c(911,538,44,456,3,43,2,279))