David,

2.3.1 is a bit old to be reporting bugs -- we do ask people to check that their 
problem is still present in a contemporary version of R. However, your data do 
still give the same output in R 2.7.2 (which is not current, but was current 
less than a year ago).

I've tidied up the code to remove all the weird characters:

booth<-read.table(tmp<-textConnection("COUNT REWGRP COMMIT SATIS STAY
1 1 16 19 18
2 1 18 15 17
3 1 18 14 14
4 1 16 20 10
5 1 15 13 17
6 1 12 15 11
7 2 16 20 13
8 2 18 14 16
9 2 13 10 14
10 2 17 13 19
11 2 14 18 15
12 2 19 16 18
13 3 20 18 16
14 3 18 15 19
15 3 13 14 17
16 3 12 16 15
17 3 16 17 18
18 3 14 19 15
"),header=TRUE)

fit<-manova(cbind(COMMIT,SATIS,STAY)~REWGRP,data=booth)


Now, as to the question of whether this is a bug.  You don't give the SAS 
answers that you are happy with, just the R answers. This makes it a lot more 
difficult.

It's possible that there is a bug in manova(), but another possibility, since 
you are concerned about degrees of freedom, and based on the last three letters 
of the name of your predictor variable, is that you wanted

fit2<-manova(cbind(COMMIT,SATIS,STAY)~factor(REWGRP),data=booth)
summary(fit2, test="Pillai")
               Df  Pillai approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)
factor(REWGRP)  2 0.28342  0.77049      6     28 0.5995
Residuals 15
summary(fit2, test="Roy")
               Df     Roy approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)
factor(REWGRP)  2 0.31963  1.49159      3     14 0.2599
Residuals 15
summary(fit2, test="Hotelling")
               Df Hotelling-Lawley approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)
factor(REWGRP)  2          0.36261  0.72521      6     24 0.6336
Residuals      15



Googling for the variable names and SAS, MANOVA found some programs in which 
REWGRP was specified as a CLASS variable, ie, a factor.

Also

http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9781590474174/ch11lev1sec3

has what might be the output of this code.  The test statistics all match the 
ones in R, but the p-values are slightly different except for Wilks' lambda.

So, it looks as though at least you need to specify that the variable is a 
factor.  I will have to leave the question of whether the p-values are correct 
to someone with more knowledge of MANOVA.  It does seem from the documentation 
that agreement with SAS is intended at least for the Pillai trace and Roy's 
largest root.

We do appreciate bug reports, but it shouldn't be necessary to do all this work 
to find out what you think the correct answer is.

      -thomas


On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 dvdbo...@cs.com wrote:


Hi.? There appears to be a bug in R function manova.? My friend and I both ran 
it the same way as shown below (his run) with the shown data set. His results 
are shown below. we both got the same results.? I was running with R 2.3.1. I'm 
not sure what version he used.
Thanks very much,
David Booth
Kent State University







-----Original Message-----
From: dvdbo...@cs.com
To: kb...@ilstu.edu
Sent: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 7:01 pm
Subject: Re: MANOVA Data











Ken,

Did you notice that Wilks, Roy, etc p-values are all the same?? Pillai is 
almost the SAS result.? Can't figure it out.? I'll submit a bug report. What's 
Velleman going to talk about?? Thanks for looking at the R.

Best,

Dave















-----Original Message-----

From: Ken Berk <kb...@ilstu.edu>

To: dvdbo...@cs.com

Sent: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 3:45 pm

Subject: Re: Fwd: MANOVA Data














At 08:07 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote:



Hi Ken,


I've run the attached data set ( a one way MANOVA ex. from the SAS manual
chapter on MANOVA) in both SAS and R and I don't get the same
results.? Do you have any suggestions about how I can find out
what's going on?


Thanks,


Dave







-----Original Message-----


From: dvdbo...@cs.com


To: dvdbo...@aol.com


Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 5:06 pm


Subject: MANOVA Data










Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com





Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at
http://www.cs.com








Hello, David




My R results are clearly crap, as shown below.




The degrees of freedom are clearly wrong, as is apparent when looking at
the univariate anovas.




SAS gives the correct answers.




I don't know what to do about R.




Ken







COUNT??? REWGRP??? COMMIT???
SATIS??? STAY


1????
1????????
16???????
19?????? 18


2????
1????????
18???????
15?????? 17


3????
1????????
18???????
14?????? 14


4????
1????????
16???????
20?????? 10


5????
1????????
15???????
13?????? 17


6????
1????????
12???????
15?????? 11


7????
2????????
16???????
20?????? 13


8????
2????????
18???????
14?????? 16


9????
2????????
13???????
10?????? 14


10??? 2????????
17???????
13?????? 19


11??? 2????????
14???????
18?????? 15


12??? 2????????
19???????
16?????? 18


13??? 3????????
20???????
18?????? 16


14??? 3????????
18???????
15?????? 19


15??? 3????????
13???????
14?????? 17


16??? 3????????
12???????
16?????? 15


17??? 3????????
16???????
17?????? 18


18??? 3????????
14???????
19?????? 15




attach(booth)


Y <- cbind(COMMIT, SATIS, STAY)


fit <- manova(Y ~ REWGRP)


summary(fit, test="Pillai")


????????? Df? Pillai
approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)


REWGRP???? 1 0.22731?
1.37283????? 3???? 14
0.2918


Residuals
16?????????????????????????????????????



summary(fit, test="Wilks")


????????? Df??
Wilks approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)


REWGRP???? 1 0.77269?
1.37283????? 3???? 14
0.2918


Residuals
16?????????????????????????????????????



summary(fit, test="Hotelling-Lawley")


????????? Df
Hotelling-Lawley approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)


REWGRP????
1????????? 0.29418?
1.37283????? 3???? 14
0.2918


Residuals
16??????????????????????????????????????????????



summary(fit, test="Roy")


?????????
Df???? Roy approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)


REWGRP???? 1 0.29418?
1.37283????? 3???? 14
0.2918


Residuals
16?????????????????????????????????????



summary(fit)


????????? Df? Pillai
approx F num Df den Df Pr(>F)


REWGRP???? 1 0.22731?
1.37283????? 3???? 14
0.2918


Residuals
16?????????????????????????????????????



summary.aov(fit)


?Response COMMIT :


???????????
Df? Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)


REWGRP?????? 1??
0.333?? 0.333? 0.0532 0.8204


Residuals?? 16 100.167??
6.260??????????????





?Response SATIS :


???????????
Df? Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)


REWGRP?????? 1??
0.750?? 0.750? 0.0945 0.7625


Residuals?? 16 127.028??
7.939??????????????





?Response STAY :


??????????? Df Sum
Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)


REWGRP?????? 1 14.083? 14.083?
2.3013 0.1488


Residuals?? 16 97.917??
6.120??????????????

















Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com







________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel


Thomas Lumley                   Assoc. Professor, Biostatistics
tlum...@u.washington.edu        University of Washington, Seattle

______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel

Reply via email to