similar to: environments again

The message for aov1 was "Estimated effects <may> be unbalanced". The effects are not unbalanced. The design is 'orthogonal'. The problem is that there are not enough degrees of freedom to estimate all those error terms. If you change the model to: aov1 <- aov(RT~fact1*fact2*fact3+Error(sub/(fact1+fact2+fact3)),data=myData) or to aov2 <-

Hello, I am running error rate analysis. It is my results below. When I compare aov1 and aov2, X square = 4.05, p = 0.044, which indicates that adding the factor "Congruity" improved the fitting of model. However, the following Z value is less than 1 and p value for Z is 1, which means that "Congruity" is not significant at all. Therefore, these two parts are not consistent,

Hello, I wrote the following function to compute multiple comparisons in a one way anova and randomized blocks anova. aov1 <- function(y,g,s=NULL,comp="mca",meth="Sidak") { # fun <- function(x) c(mean(x,na.rm=T),sd(x,na.rm=T),length(x[!is.na(x)])) # li <- length(unique(g)) cat(" Analysis of Variance with Multiple comparisons\n\n") cat("

Hello everybody, I need an help because I don´t know if the command for the ANOVA analysis I am performing in R is correct. Indeed using the function aov I get the following error:"In aov (......) Error() model is singular" The structure of my table is the following: subject, stimulus, condition, sex, response Example: subject stimulus condition sex response

Dear R-users, Sorry for reposting. I put it in another way : I want to test random effects in this random effect model : Rendement ~ Pollinisateur (random) + Lignee (random) + Pollinisateur:Lignee (random) Of course : summary(aov(Rendement ~ Pollinisateur * Lignee, data = mca2)) gives wrong tests for random effects. But : summary(aov1 <- aov(Rendement ~ Error(Pollinisateur * Lignee), data =

Dear R-users, My question is how to get right F tests for random effects in random effect models (I hope this question has not been answered too many times yet - I didn't find an answer in rhelp archives). My data are in mca2 (enc.) : names(mca2) [1] "Lignee" "Pollinisateur" "Rendement" dim(mca2) [1] 100 3 replications(Rendement ~ Lignee *

Dear all, I need to understand a thing in the beheaviour of the two functions aov and anova in the following case involving an analysis of ANOVA with repeated measures: If I use the folowing command I don´t get any problem: >aov1 = aov(response ~ stimulus*condition + Error(subject/(stimulus*condition)), >data=scrd) > summary(aov1) Instead if I try to fit the same model for the

Dear all, how can I perform a post hoc analysis for ANOVA with repeated measures (in presence of a balanced design)? I am not able to find a good example over internet in R...is there among you someone so kind to give me an hint with a R example please? For example, the aov result of my analysis says that there is a statistical difference between stimuli (there are 7 different stimuli). ...I

I'm starting to understand fixed and random effects, but I'm puzzled a bit. Here is an example from Hays's textbook (which is great at explaining fixed vs. random effects, at least to dummies like me), from the section on mixed models. You need library(nlme) in order to run it. ------ task <- gl(3,2,36) # Three tasks, a fixed effect. subj <- gl(6,6,36) # Six subjects, a random

I am new to statistics, R, and this list, so apologies in advance for the errors etiquette I am certain to make (in spite of reading the posting guide, help on various commands, etc.). ?Any help is greatly appreciated. Here is my data: fatigue = c(3,2,2,3,2,3,4,3,2,4,5,3,3,2,4,5,4,5,5,6,4,6,9,8,4,3,5,5,6,6,6,7,9,10,12,9) n <- 3 train <- gl(3, 4*n, labels=c("6wks",

Dear R-experts! I having trouble with the correct implementation of a mixed-model ANOVA in R. I my dataset subjects were tested in a cognitive performance test (numerical outcome variable 'score'). This cognitive performance test is devided into five blocks (categorical factor 'block'). All subjects were tested two times (in random order once following placebo treatment and once

Dear all, I need an help because I am really not able to find over internet a good example in R to analyze an unbalanced table with Anova with repeated measures. For unbalanced table I mean that the questions are not answered all by the same number of subjects. For a balanced case I would use the command aov1 = aov(response ~ stimulus*condition + Error(subject/(stimulus*condition)), data=scrd)

I'm creating an ANOVA model. Is there a way to pull in consecutive columns of variables for the test? Example: aov1<-aov(y~x1+x2+REG[,2:num], data=REG) I'm not looking for interaction effects, I just want to create a model for the first few columns of variables (exact number and names will vary) and a few other predetermined variables (in the example I named them x1 and x2). Thanks

Dear R People: I have an AOV model that I get confidence intervals from via > confint(chick1.aov1) 2.5 % 97.5 % trtA 1.472085 1.607915 trtB 1.512085 1.647915 trtC 1.328751 1.464582 > I am using R2HTML to produce HTML output. However, the HTML code itself just has rounded values, i.e., 1.5 and 1.6. Has anyone run across this, please? Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

In my undertstanding of the problem, the model lme1 <- lme(resp~fact1*fact2, random=~1|subj) should be ok, providing that variances are homogenous both between & within subjects. The function will sort out which factors & interactions are to be compared within subjects, & which between subjects. The problem with df's arises (for lme() in nlme, but not in lme4), when

Dear ExpeRts, Suppose I have a typical psychological experiment that is a within-subjects design with multiple crossed variables and a continuous response variable. Subjects are considered a random effect. So I could model > aov1 <- aov(resp~fact1*fact2+Error(subj/(fact1*fact2)) However, this only holds for orthogonal designs with equal numbers of observation and no missing values.

I think there are two bugs in aov() that shows up when the right hand side of `formula' contains both `-1' and an Error() term, e.g., aov(y ~ a + b - 1 + Error(c), ...). Without `-1' or `Error()' there is no problem. I've included and example, and the source of aov() with suggested fixes below. The first bug (labeled BUG 1 below) creates an extra, empty stratum inside

I believe you are right, but can you please explain why anyone would want to fit this model? It differs only in the coding from aov(y ~ a + b + Error(c), data=test.df) and merely lumps together the top two strata. There is a much simpler fix: in the line if(intercept) nmstrata <- c("(Intercept)", nmstrata) remove the condition (and drop the empty stratum later if you

Hello everybody, In am trying to analyse a BACI experiment and I really want to do it with R (which I find really exciting). So, before moving on I though it would be a good idea to repeat some known experiments which are quite similar to my own. I tried to reproduce 2 published examples but without much success. The first one in particular is a published dataset analysed with SAS by

I've posted the following to R-help on May 15. It has reproducible R code for real data -- and a real (academic, i.e unpaid) consultion background. I'd be glad for some insight here, mainly not for myself. In the mean time, we've learned that it is to be expected for anova(*, "marginal") to be contrast dependent, but still are glad for advice if you have experience. Thank