Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Eric Scott wrote: > Thank you for your reply. The WoodEnergy example helped a lot. I > understand now that it is inappropriate to make all pairwise comparisons > with an interaction present and better to make comparisons between levels of > one factor within a constant level of the second factor. As I understand it, > the solution in the WoodEnergy example is to produce separate ANOVAs for > each type of wood and then perform the multiple comparisons between stove > types within each wood type. This makes a lot of sense. For my data, I'm > using glm.nb and if I run the model separately for each level of "site," it > estimates a different theta for each which I immagine is a problem. Is this > ok, or do I need to find a way to use the coefficients from the full model > with the interaction to compare levels of clipping within fixed levels of > site? > > -Eric Scott > > The "right" solution is to fit one model and then work with its coefficients. For this example the R glht function did not, at the time I wrote the example, have the option of averaging over the wood types. It now has "experimental" options for interaction_average covariate_average These usually, but not always, do the right thing. For this example, I prefer the analysis in file HH/demo/MMC.WoodEnergy.s.R in which one aov model is calculated and the adjustments are made for the levels of Wood. That file works in S-Plus, but not in R. As I noted before, I still need to revise the WoodEnergy example to use the experimental option in glht to duplicate the results I get from S-Plus. [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
Thank you for your reply. The WoodEnergy example helped a lot. I
understand now that it is inappropriate to make all pairwise comparisons
with an interaction present and better to make comparisons between levels of
one factor within a constant level of the second factor. As I understand it,
the solution in the WoodEnergy example is to produce separate ANOVAs for
each type of wood and then perform the multiple comparisons between stove
types within each wood type. This makes a lot of sense. For my data, I'm
using glm.nb and if I run the model separately for each level of "site," it
estimates a different theta for each which I immagine is a problem. Is this
ok, or do I need to find a way to use the coefficients from the full model
with the interaction to compare levels of clipping within fixed levels of
site?
-Eric Scott
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:49 PM, RICHARD M. HEIBERGER wrote:
> In addtition to the example I mentioned previously,
> demo("MMC.WoodEnergy-aov", "HH")
>
> Please also see
> demo("MMC.WoodEnergy", "HH")
>
> In this example, since anova(energy.aov.4),
> shows that the Wood factor and Stove:Wood interaction are significant,
> all possible pairwise comparisons of the 12 Stove:Wood terms are not
> interpretable. Only comparisons of Stoves within each of the Woods is
> interpretable. These estimates are shown with both tables and graphs.
> Since the covariate is also significant, it is necessary to pick a
> reference
> value for the comparisons.
>
> Here is a simplification of the WoodEnergy example to ignore the covariate.
> The 66 pairwise comparisons that TukeyHSD provides for the interaction
> effect are not interpretable. The significant interaction and one
> significant
> main effect together are an indicator that
> main effects and interactions are not interpretable.
> Only simple effects of one factor within
> a constant level of the other factor are interpretable.
>
> > energy.aov.4b <- aov(Energy ~ Stove*Wood + Stove:Wood,
> + data=energy)
> > anova(energy.aov.4b)
> Analysis of Variance Table
> Response: Energy
>Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F valuePr(>F)
> Stove 2 0.007 0.003 0.00780.9923
> Wood3 274.768 91.589 209.0130 < 2.2e-16 ***
> Stove:Wood 6 34.570 5.762 13.1483 3.781e-10 ***
> Residuals 76 33.303 0.438
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> > energy.aov.4b.HSD <- TukeyHSD(energy.aov.4b)
> > sapply(energy.aov.4b.HSD, dim)
> Stove Wood Stove:Wood
> [1,] 36 66
> [2,] 44 4
> >
>
>
>
>
> About a year after I wrote this example, Torsten extended glht to permit
> an option of averaging over other factors and covariates. I need to revise
> the WoodEnergy example to use that option.
>
> Rich
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
In addtition to the example I mentioned previously,
demo("MMC.WoodEnergy-aov", "HH")
Please also see
demo("MMC.WoodEnergy", "HH")
In this example, since anova(energy.aov.4),
shows that the Wood factor and Stove:Wood interaction are significant,
all possible pairwise comparisons of the 12 Stove:Wood terms are not
interpretable. Only comparisons of Stoves within each of the Woods is
interpretable. These estimates are shown with both tables and graphs.
Since the covariate is also significant, it is necessary to pick a reference
value for the comparisons.
Here is a simplification of the WoodEnergy example to ignore the covariate.
The 66 pairwise comparisons that TukeyHSD provides for the interaction
effect are not interpretable. The significant interaction and one
significant
main effect together are an indicator that
main effects and interactions are not interpretable.
Only simple effects of one factor within
a constant level of the other factor are interpretable.
> energy.aov.4b <- aov(Energy ~ Stove*Wood + Stove:Wood,
+ data=energy)
> anova(energy.aov.4b)
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: Energy
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F valuePr(>F)
Stove 2 0.007 0.003 0.00780.9923
Wood3 274.768 91.589 209.0130 < 2.2e-16 ***
Stove:Wood 6 34.570 5.762 13.1483 3.781e-10 ***
Residuals 76 33.303 0.438
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
> energy.aov.4b.HSD <- TukeyHSD(energy.aov.4b)
> sapply(energy.aov.4b.HSD, dim)
Stove Wood Stove:Wood
[1,] 36 66
[2,] 44 4
>
About a year after I wrote this example, Torsten extended glht to permit
an option of averaging over other factors and covariates. I need to revise
the WoodEnergy example to use that option.
Rich
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
Thanks for the example, but I'm still not sure from this example how to see
the pairwise comparisons for the interaction. For example, if I have two
factors, X and Y; and X has 2 levels, A and B, and Y has 3 levels, 1, 2, and
3, a TukeyHSD would give the following comparisons with p-values for each:
factor X
A-B
factor Y
1-2
1-3
2-3
X:Y
A:1 - A:2
A:1 - A:3
A:2 - A:3
A:1 - B:1
A:1 - B:2
A:1 - B:3
A:2 - B:1
etc.
But if I add a covariate in addition to these two factors, TukeyHSD won't
work (because it doesn't recognize the covariate as a factor).
With the maiz example in ?MMC, it shows the differences between hybrids, but
doesn't show all the differences between nitrogen levels within and between
hybrids, unless I'm not seeing something (I must admit, the tie-breaker plot
was new to me and I'm still not entirely sure I understand it). glht and
glht.mmc both seem to only allow one factor in the
linfct=mcp(factor="Tukey") argument. For example, glht.mmc(maiz2.aov,
linfct=mcp(hibrido:nitrogeno="Tukey")) doesn't work.
I apologize if my confusion stems from a lack of knowledge of the
statistical underpinnings of an ANCOVA, but it seems like there should be a
way to get the same types of comparisons that TukeyHSD gives.
-Eric Scott
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 8:19 AM, RICHARD M. HEIBERGER wrote:
> Please see the maiz example in ?MMC in the HH package.
>
> maiz is the last example in the help file. Keep going all the way to the
> end of
> the help file. See also the
>
> demo("MMC.WoodEnergy-aov", "HH")
> These examples show how to use glht in the presence of interactions and
> covariates.
>
> Rich
>
>
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
Please see the maiz example in ?MMC in the HH package.
maiz is the last example in the help file. Keep going all the way to the
end of
the help file. See also the
demo("MMC.WoodEnergy-aov", "HH")
These examples show how to use glht in the presence of interactions and
covariates.
Rich
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
__
R-help@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
Eric Scott-3 wrote: > > I'm trying to do an ANCOVA with two factors (clipping treatment with two > levels, and plot with 4 levels) and a covariate (stem diameter). The > response variable is fruit number. The minimal adequate model looks like > this: > > model3<-lm(fruit~clip + plot + st.dia + clip:plot) > > I'd like to get some multiple comparisons like the ones from TukeyHSD, > but... > > To quote glht: The mcp function must be used with care when defining parameters of interest in two-way ANOVA or ANCOVA models. Here, the definition of treatment differences (such as Tukey's all-pair comparisons or Dunnett's comparison with a control) might be problem specific. Because it is impossible to determine the parameters of interest automatically in this case, mcp in multcomp version 1.0-0 and higher generates comparisons for the main effects only, ignoring covariates and interactions (older versions automatically averaged over interaction terms). A warning is given. We refer to Hsu (1996), Chapter 7, and Searle (1971), Chapter 7.3, for further discussions and examples on this issue. Too bad there is no example (Hi, Torsten it would be nice). A thread coming close is in: http://markmail.org/message/rhdohxlrt3cpsdpx Dieter -- View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Multiple-comparisons-for-a-two-factor-ANCOVA-tp1593039p1593082.html Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com. __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
[R] Multiple comparisons for a two-factor ANCOVA
I'm trying to do an ANCOVA with two factors (clipping treatment with two levels, and plot with 4 levels) and a covariate (stem diameter). The response variable is fruit number. The minimal adequate model looks like this: model3<-lm(fruit~clip + plot + st.dia + clip:plot) I'd like to get some multiple comparisons like the ones from TukeyHSD, but TukeyHSD doesn't work with the covariate. I've tried using glht() in the multcomp package, but I'm not sure how to get it to give me the TukeyHSD for all the interactions (i.e. clipped:plotA vs. unclipped:plotA, etc). It seems as if I can only specify one factor or the other, and it gives me a warning about there being interactions. glht(model3, linfct=mcp(plot="Tukey")) General Linear Hypotheses Multiple Comparisons of Means: Tukey Contrasts Linear Hypotheses: Estimate 151Nat - 151Trans == 0 -1.924 HC - 151Trans == 0 -7.942 HE - 151Trans == 0 -4.637 HC - 151Nat == 0 -6.018 HE - 151Nat == 0 -2.712 HE - HC == 0 3.305 Warning message: In mcp2matrix(model, linfct = linfct) : covariate interactions found -- default contrast might be inappropriate How can I get it to give me the same sort of output that TukeyHSD gives with just a regular two-way ANOVA? Thanks for your help -Eric Scott [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
