Design of Experiments and Analysis of Variance

Chapter 8
Design of Experiments and

Analysis of Variance
8.1
Since only one factor is utilized, the treatments are the four levels (A, B, C, D) of the qualitative factor.
8.2
The treatments are the combinations of levels of each of the two factors. There are 2 5 = 10 treatments. They are:
(A, 50), (A, 60), (A, 70), (A, 80), (A, 90)
(B, 50), (B, 60), (B, 70), (B, 80), (B, 90)
8.3
One has no control over the levels of the factors in an observational experiment. One does have control of
the levels of the factors in a designed experiment.
8.4
a.
College GPA's are measured on college students. The experimental units are college students.
b.
Household income is measured on households. The experimental units are households.
c.
Gasoline mileage is measured on automobiles. The experimental units are the automobiles of a
particular model.
d.
The experimental units are the sectors on a computer diskette.
e.
The experimental units are the states.
a.
This is an observational experiment. The economist has no control over the factor levels or
unemployment rates.
b.
This is a designed experiment. The manager chooses only three different incentive programs to
compare, and randomly assigns an incentive program to each of nine plants.
c.
This is an observational experiment. Even though the marketer chooses the publication, he has no
control over who responds to the ads.
d.
This is an observational experiment. The load on the facility's generators is only observed, not
controlled.
e.
This is an observational experiment. One has no control over the distance of the haul, the goods
hauled, or the price of diesel fuel.
a.
The response variable is the amount of the purchase.
b.
There is one factor in this problem: type of credit card.
c.
There are 4 treatments, corresponding to the 4 levels of the factor. The treatments are VISA,
MasterCard, American Express, and Discover.
d.
The experimental units are the credit card holders.
8.5
8.6
464
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall.
Design of Experiments and Analysis of Variance

8.7
The response variable is the age when the tumor was first detected.
b.
The experimental units are the smokers.
c.
There is one factor in this problem: screening method.
d.
8.8
a.
There are 2 treatments in this problem, corresponding to the 2 levels of the factor. The
treatments are CT and chest X-ray.
a.
b.
c.
d.
The experimental units are the accounting alumni.

The response variable is income.
There are 2 factors in the problem: Mach score classification and Gender.
Mach score classification has 3 levels high, moderate, and low. Gender has 2 levels male and
female.
There are a total of 2 x 3 = 6 treatments in his experiment. The treatments are all of the
Mach score rating-gender combinations.
e.
8.9
465
There are 2 factors in this problem: Class standing and study group.
d.
Class standing has 3 levels: Low, Medium, and High. Study group has 2 levels: practice test and
review.
e.
There are a total of 3 2 = 6 treatments. They are: (Low, Review), (Low, Practice exam),
(Medium, Review), (Medium, Practice exam), (High, Review), and (High, Practice exam).
f.
The response variable is the final exam score.
a.
The response variable in this problem is the consumers opinion on the value of the discount offer.
b.
There are two treatments in this problem: Within-store price promotion and between-store price
promotion.
c.
The experimental units are the consumers.
a.
There are 2 factors in this problem, each with 2 levels. Thus, there are a total of 2 2 = 4 treatments.
b.
8.12
The study is a designed experiment because the students are randomly assigned to a particular study
group.
c.
8.11
The experimental units for this study are the students in the introductory psychology class.
b.
8.10
a.
The 4 treatments are: (Within-store, home), (Within-store, in store), (Between-store,home), and

(Between-store, in store).
a.
There are 2 factors in the problem: Type of yeast and Temperature. Type of yeast has
2 levels Brewers yeast and bakers yeast. Temperature has 4 levels 45o, 48o, 51o and 54oC.
b.
The response variable is the autolysis yield.
c.
There are a total of 2 4 = 8 treatments in this experiment. The treatments are all the type of yeasttemperature combinations.
d.
This is a designed experiment.
466
8.13
Chapter 8
a.
The dependent variable is the dissolution time.
b.
There are 3 factors in this experiment: Binding agent, binding concentration, and relative density.
Binding agent has 2 levels khaya gum and PVP. Binding concentration has 2 levels .5% and
4.0%. Relative density has 2 levels high and low.
c.
There could be a total of 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 treatments for this experiment. They are:

khaya gum, .5%, high
khaya gum, .5%, low
khaya gum, 4.0%, high
khaya gum, 4.0%, low
8.14
PVP, .5%, high

PVP, .5%, low
PVP, 4.0%, high
PVP, 4.0%, low
The treatments are the 2 2 = 4 combinations type of sales job and sales task.
d.
The experimental units are the college students.
a.
From Table VIII with 1 = 4 and 2 = 4, F.05 = 6.39.
b.
From Table X with 1 = 4 and 2 = 4, F.01 = 15.98.
c.
From Table VII with 1 = 30 and 2 = 40, F.10 = 1.54.
d.
From Table IX with 1 = 15, and 2 = 12, F.025 = 3.18.
a.
P(F 3.48) = 1 - .05 = .95 using Table VIII, Appendix B, with 1 = 5 and 2 = 9
b.
P(F > 3.09) = .01 using Table X, Appendix B, with 1 = 15 and 2 = 20
c.
P(F > 2.40) = .05 using Table VIII, Appendix B, with 1 = 15 and 2 = 15
d.
8.17
There are two factorstype of sales job at two levels (high tech. vs. low tech.) and sales task at two
levels (new account development vs. account maintenance).
c.
8.16
The response is the evaluation by the undergraduate student of the ethical behavior of the
salesperson.
b.
8.15
a.
P(F 1.83) = 1 .10 = .90 using Table VII, Appendix B, with 1 = 8 and 2 = 40
a.
In the second dot diagram #2, the difference between the sample means is small relative to the
variability within the sample observations. In the first dot diagram #1, the values in each of the
samples are grouped together with a range of 4, while in the second diagram #2, the range of values
is 8.

b.
For diagram #1,
x1
x2
7 8 9 9 10 11 54
=9
6
6
12 13 14 14 15 16 84
= 14
6
6
For diagram #2,

x1
x2
c.
5 5 7 11 13 13 54
=9
6
6
10 10 12 16 18 18 84
= 14
6
6
For diagram #1,

2
SST =
n (x x )
i
i 1
1 = 6(9 11.5)2 + 6(14 11.5)2 = 75
x 54 84 11.5
12
For diagram #2,

2
SST =
n (x x )
i
= 6(9 - 11.5)2 + 6(14 - 11.5)2 = 75
i 1
d.
For diagram #1,
2
1
2
s1 =
n1
n1 1
2
2
2
s2 =
n2
n2 1
542
54 2
496
6 =
6 =2
6 1
6 1
496
842
6 =2
6 1
1186
2
2
SSE = (n1 1) s1 + (n2 1) s2 = (6 1)2 + (6 1)2 = 20
467
468
Chapter 8
For diagram #2,
2
1
2
s1 =
2
s2 =
n1
n1 1
2
x2
542
6 = 14.4
6 1
558
n2
n2 1
842
6 = 14.4
6 1
1248
2
2
SSE = (n1 1) s1 + (n2 1) s2 = (6 1)14.4 + (6 1)14.4 = 144
e.
For diagram #1, SS(Total) = SST + SSE = 75 + 20 = 95

SST is
SST
75
100% =
100% = 78.95% of SS(Total)
SS(Total)
95
For diagram #2, SS(Total) = SST + SSE = 75 + 144 = 219

SST is
f.
SST
75
100% =
100% = 34.25% of SS(Total)
SS(Total)
219
SST
75
= 75
k 1 2 1
SSE
20
=2
MSE =
n k 12 2
For diagram #1, MST =
F=
MST
75
=
= 37.5
MSE
2
SST
75
= 75
k 1 2 1
SSE
144
MST
75
=
= 5.21
= 14.4 F =
MSE =
n k 12 2
MSE
14.4
For diagram #2, MST =
g.
The rejection region for both diagrams requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1
= p 1 = 2 1 = 1 and 2 = n p = 12 2 = 10. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 4.96. The
rejection region is F > 4.96.
For diagram #1, the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (F = 37.5 > 4.96).
Thus, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the samples were drawn from
populations with different means at = .05.
For diagram #2, the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (F = 5.21 > 4.96).
Thus, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the samples were drawn from
populations with different means at = .05.
h.
We must assume both populations are normally distributed with common variances.
8.18
469
For each dot diagram, we want to test:

H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
From Exercise 8.17,

Diagram #1
x1 = 9
Diagram #2
x1 = 9
x2 = 14
x2 = 14
2
s1
2
s2
=2
2
s1 = 14.4
=2
2
s2 = 14.4
a.
Error! Bookmark not
defined.Diagram #1
2
2
s1 s2
2
22
2 (n1 n2 )
2
In Exercise 8.17, MSE = 2
2
sp
Diagram #2
2
2
s1 s2
2
14.4 14.4
14.4 (n1 n2 )
2
In Exercise 8.17, MSE = 14.4
2
sp
The pooled variance for the two-sample t-test is the same as the MSE for the F-test.
b.
t=
Diagram #1
x1 x2
9 14
=
1 1
1
2 1
2 +
sp
6 6
n1 n2
= 6.12
In Exercise 8.17, F = 37.5
t=
Diagram #2
9 14
=
1 1
1
2 1
14.4 +
sp
6 6
n1 n2
x1 x2
= 2.28
In Exercise 8.17, F = 5.21
The test statistic for the F-test is the square of the test statistic for the t-test.
c.
Diagram #1
For the t-test, the rejection region requires
/2 = .05/2 = .025 in each tail of the tdistribution with df = n1 + n2 2 = 6 + 6 2
= 10. From Table V, Appendix B,
t.025 = 2.228.
Diagram #2
For the t-test, the rejection region
is the same as Diagram #1 since
we are using the same , n1, and
n2 for both tests.
The rejection region is t < 2.228 or t > 2.228.

In Exercise 8.17, the rejection region for both diagrams using the F-test is F > 4.96.
The tabled F value equals the square of the tabled t value.
470
Chapter 8
d.
Diagram #1
For the t-test, since the test statistic falls in

the rejection region (t = 6.12 < 2.228),
we would reject H0. In Exercise 8.17,
using the F-test, we rejected H0.
e.
Diagram #2
For the t-test, since the test statistic falls in

the rejection region (t = 2.28 < 2.228),
we would reject H0. In Exercise 8.17,
using the F-test, we rejected H0.
Assumptions for the t-test:

1.
2.
3.
Both populations have relative frequency distributions that are approximately normal.
The two population variances are equal.
Samples are selected randomly and independently from the populations.
Assumptions for the F-test:

1.
2.
3.
Both population probability distributions are normal.

The two population variances are equal.
Samples are selected randomly and independently from the respective populations.
The assumptions are the same for both tests.

8.19
Refer to Exercise 8.17, the ANOVA table is:

For diagram #1:
Source
Treatment
Error
Total
Df
1
10
11
SS
75
20
95
MS
75
2
F
37.5
SS
75
144
219
MS
75
14.4
F
5.21
For diagram #2:

Source
Treatment
Error
Total
8.20
a.
Df
1
10
11
df for Error is 41 6 = 35
SSE = SS(Total) SST = 46.5 17.5 = 29.0
SST 17.5
= 2.9167
k 1
6
MST
2.9167
=
= 3.52
F=
MSE
.8286
MST =
MSE =
SSE 29.0
= .8286
nk
35
The ANOVA table is:

Source
Treatment
Error
Total
df
6
35
41
SS
17.5
29.0
46.5
MS
2.9167
.8286
F
3.52
471
b.
The number of treatments is k. We know k 1 = 6 k = 7.
c.
The total sample size is n = 41 + 1 = 42, where 41 = df Total.
d.
First, one would number the 42 experimental units from 1 to 42. Then generate over 100 uniform
random numbers from 1 to 42. The first 6 different random numbers will correspond to treatment 1.
The next 6 different random numbers will correspond to treatment 2. Repeat the process for
treatments, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.
e.
To determine if there is a difference among the population means, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = = 7
Ha: At least one of the population means differs from the rest
The test statistic is F = 3.52.
The rejection region requires = .10 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with numerator
df = k 1 = 6 and denominator df = n k = 35. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 1.98. The
Since the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (F = 3.52 > 1.98), H0 is
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference among the population means at = .10.
f.
The observed significance level is P(F 3.52). With numerator df = 6 and denominator df = 35, and
Table X, P(F 3.52) < .01.
g.
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
The test statistic is t =
x1 x2
1
1
MSE
n1 n2
3.7 4.1
1 1
.8286
6 6
= .76
The rejection region requires /2 = .10/2 = .05 in each tail of the t-distribution with df = n p = 35.
From Table V, Appendix B, t.05 1.697. The rejection region is t < 1.697 or t > 1.697.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region (t = .76 1.697),
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that 1 and 2 differ at = .10.
h.
For confidence coefficient .90, = .10 and /2 = .05. From Table V, Appendix B, with df = 35,
t.05 1.697. The confidence interval is:
1 1
1
1
(3.7 4.1) 1.697 .8286
( x1 x2 ) t.05 MSE

6 6
n1 n 2
.4 .892 (1.292, .492)
i.
The confidence interval is:

x1 t.05 MSE/6 3.7 1.697 .8286 / 6 3.7 .631 (3.069, 4.331)
472
8.21
Chapter 8
a.
Some preliminary calculations are:
y
CM =
i
SS(Total) =
SST =
37.12
= 114.701
12
2
i
CM = 145.89 114.701 = 31.189
Ti 2
16.92 16.02 4.22
CM =
114.701
ni
5
4
3
= 127.002 114.701 = 12.301
SSE = SS(Total) SST = 31.189 12.301 = 18.888

SST 12.301
SSE 18.888
=
=
MST =
= 6.1505 MSE =
= 2.0987
k 1 3 1
n k 12 3
MST 6.1505
=
= 2.931
F=
MSE 2.0987
Source
Treatments
Error
Total
b.
df
2
9
11
SS
12.30
18.89
31.19
MS
6.15
2.10
F
2.93
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
Ha: At least two treatment means differ
The rejection region requires = .01 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = k 1 = 3 1 = 2
and 2 = n k = 12 3 = 9. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 = 8.02. The rejection region is
F > 8.02.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region (F = 2.93 8.02),
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the treatment means at
= .01.
8.22
a.
This is a completely randomized design because the subjects were randomly assigned to one of three
groups.
b.
The response variable was the total WTP (willing to pay) value and the treatments were the 3 types
of instructions given.
c.
To determine if the mean total WTP values differed among the three groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
d.
One would number the subjects from 1 to 252. Then, use a random number generator to generate
350 to 400 random numbers from 1 to 252 (We need to generate more than 252 random numbers to
account for duplicates.) The first 84 different random numbers will be assigned to group 1, the next
84 different random numbers will be assigned to groups 2, and the rest will be assigned to group 3.
8.23
a.
To determine if the mean LUST discount percentages across the seven states differ, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = 7
b.
473
From the ANOVA table, the test statistic is F = 1.60 and the p-value = 0.174.
Since the observed p-value (p = 0.174) is not less than = .10, H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient
evidence to indicate a difference in the mean LUST discount percentages among the seven states at
= .10.
8.24
a.
The experimental unit in the study is the college tennis coach. The dependent variable is the
response to the statement the Prospective Student-Athlete Form on the web site contributes very
little to the recruiting process on a scale from 1 to 7. There is one factor in the study and it is the
NCAA division of the college tennis coach. There are 3 levels of this factor, and thus, there are 3
treatments Division I, Division II, and Division III.
b.
To determine if the mean responses of tennis coaches from the different divisions differ, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
Ha: At least 1 i differs
c.
a.
A completely randomized design was used.
b.
There are 4 treatments: 3 robots/colony, 6 robots/colony, 9 robots/colony, and 12 robots/colony.
c.
8.25
Since the observed p-value of the test (p < .003) is less than = .05, H0 is rejected. There is
sufficient evidence to indicate differences in mean response among coaches of the 3 divisions.
To determine if there was a difference in the mean energy expended (per robot) among the 4 colony
sizes, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least two means differ
d.
8.26
Since the p-value (<.001) is less than (.05), H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a
difference in mean energy expended per robot among the 4 colony sizes at = .05.
a.
To determine if differences exist in the mean rates of return among the three types of
fund groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
b.
The rejection region requires = .01 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = k 1 = 3 1 =
2 and 2 = N k = 90 3 = 87. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 4.98. The rejection region is
F > 4.98.
c.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist in the mean rates of return among
the three types of fund groups at = .01.
474
8.27
Chapter 8
To determine if a drivers propensity to engage in road rage is related to his/her income, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
The test statistic is F = 3.90 and the p-value is p < .01. Since the p-value is less than = .05, H0 is rejected.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate a drivers propensity to engage in road rage is related to his/her
income for > .01. Since the sample means increase as the income increases, it appears that road rage
increases as income increases.
8.28
a.
To determine if the mean knowledge gain differs among the three groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
Ha: At least two population means differ
b.
Using MINITAB, the results are:

One-way ANOVA: NO, CHECK, FULL
Source
Factor
Error
Total
DF
2
72
74
S = 2.706
Level
NO
CHECK
FULL
N
30
25
20
SS
6.64
527.36
534.00
MS
3.32
7.32
R-Sq = 1.24%
Mean
2.433
2.720
1.950
F
0.45
P
0.637
R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%
Individual 95% CIs For Mean Based on

Pooled StDev
StDev
-+---------+---------+---------+-------3.431
(-----------*------------)
2.264
(------------*------------)
1.820
(--------------*--------------)
-+---------+---------+---------+-------0.80
1.60
2.40
3.20
The ANOVA table is:

Source
df
SS
MS
F-value
0.45
Assist
6.64
3.32
Error
72
527.36
7.32
Total
c.
74
p-value
534
0.637
The test statistic is F = 0.45 and the p-value = 0.637.

Since the p-value = 0.637 is larger than any reasonable significance level, H0 is not rejected. There is
insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the mean knowledge gained among the three levels of
assistance for any reasonable value of .
Practically speaking, there is not one type of assistance that helps students more than another.
a.
There is one factor in this problem which is Group. There are 5 treatments in this problem,
corresponding to the 5 levels of Group: Casualties, Survivors, Implementers/casualties,
Implementers/survivors, and Formulators. The response variable is the ethics score. The
experimental units are the employees enrolled in an Executive MBA program.
b.
To determine if there are any differences among the mean ethics scores for the five groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
Ha: At least one of the population means differs from the rest
c.
The test statistic is F = 9.85 and the p-value is p = 0.000. Since the p-value (0.000) is less than any
reasonable significance level , H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in
the mean ethics scores among the five groups of employees for any reasonable value of .
d.
We will check the assumptions of normality and equal variances. Using MINITAB, the histograms are:
Histogram of CASUAL, SURVIVE, IMPCAS, IMPSUR, FORMUL
Normal
0
CASUAL
SURVIVE
IMPC AS
30
20
Frequency
8.29
475
10
IMPSUR
FORMUL
30
SURVIVE
Mean 1.845
StDev 1.023
N
71
IMPCA S
Mean
1.593
StDev 0.6360
N
27
IMPSUR
Mean 2.545
StDev 1.301
N
33
20
10
0
CASUAL
1.787
Mean
StDev 0.8324
N
47
FORMUL
Mean 2.871
StDev 1.176
N
31
The data for some of the 5 groups do not look particularly mound-shaped, so the assumption of
normality is probably not valid.
476
Chapter 8
Using MINITAB, the boxplots are:
Boxplot of CASUAL, SURVIVE, IM
PCAS, IM
PSUR, FORM
UL
5
D
ata
1
CASUAL
SURVIVE
IMPCAS
IMPSUR
FORMUL
The spreads of responses do not appear to be about the same. The groups Implementers/survivors
and Formulators have more variability than the other three groups. Thus, the assumption of constant
variance is probably not valid.
The assumptions required for the ANOVA F-test do not appear to be reasonably satisfied.
8.30
a.
We will select size as the quantitative variable and color as the qualitative variable.
To determine if the mean size of diamonds differ among the 6 colors, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6
b.
Using MINITAB, the ANOVA table is:
One-way ANOVA: Carats versus Color

Analysis of Variance for Carats
Source
DF
SS
MS
Color
5
0.7963
0.1593
Error
302
22.7907
0.0755
Total
307
23.5869
Level
D
E
F
G
H
I
N
16
44
82
65
61
40
Pooled StDev =
Mean
0.6381
0.6232
0.5929
0.5808
0.6734
0.7310
0.2747
StDev
0.3195
0.2677
0.2648
0.2792
0.2643
0.2918
F
2.11
P
0.064
Individual 95% CIs For Mean

Based on Pooled StDev
----------+---------+---------+-----(-------------*------------)
(-------*-------)
(-----*-----)
(------*------)
(------*------)
(-------*--------)
----------+---------+---------+-----0.60
0.70
0.80
The test statistic is F = 2.11 and the p-value is p = 0.064.

Since the p-value (0.064) is less than = .10, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate
the mean size of diamonds differ among the 6 colors at = .10.

c.
477
We will check the assumptions of normality and equal variances. Using MINITAB, the
and-leaf plots are:
Stem-and-Leaf Display: Carats
Stem-and-leaf of Carats
Leaf Unit = 0.010
1
3
5
5
7
7
(4)
5
5
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1156
00011
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Color = 2
= 44
Color = 3
= 82
= 65
9
123
0011345
6
00012245668
23
000123
113
0000011113
88999
1356667
01124445567
0178
000111122333345566678
0
00001112367
0012555
0
00000011112224
Leaf Unit = 0.010
5
12
21
23
(12)
30
26
16
12
12
= 16
23
Leaf Unit = 0.010
5
12
23
27
(21)
34
33
22
15
14
9
01
01
Leaf Unit = 0.010
1
4
11
12
(11)
21
19
13
10
10
Color= 1
Color = 4
88899
0001359
000124455
08
000013556789
0034
0000001348
0125
000000011126
stem-
478
Chapter 8
Leaf Unit = 0.010
5
14
16
21
27
(13)
21
14
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Color = 5
2
457
012344567
03
25778
001466
0001112233448
0014669
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
= 61
1 89
0000011111266
0
Leaf Unit = 0.010
4
8
11
13
15
20
20
17
16
Color = 6
= 40
5689
0113
115
26
25
03355
002
0
0000001111114579
The data for the 6 colors do not look particularly mound-shaped, so the assumption of normality is
probably not valid. However, departures from this assumption often do not invalidate the ANOVA
results.
Using MINITAB, the box plots are:
1.1
1.0
0.9
Carats
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
D
Color
The spreads of all the colors appear to be about the same, so the assumption of constant variance is
probably valid.

8.31
a.
479
To determine if the mean level of trust differs among the six treatments, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6
Ha: At least one i differs
b.

The rejection region requires in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = k 1 = 6 1 = 5 and
2 = n k = 237 6 = 231. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.05 2.21. The rejection region is
F > 2.21.
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that at least two mean trusts differ at
= .05.
c.
d.
8.32
We must assume that all six samples are drawn from normal populations, the six population
variances are the same, and that the samples are independent.
I would classify this experiment as designed. Each subject was randomly assigned to receive one of
the six scenarios.
a.
I would classify this experiment as designed. Each subject was randomly assigned to receive one of
the three dosages (DM, honey, nothing). There are 3 treatments in the study corresponding to the 3
dosages: DM, honey, nothing.
b.
Using MINITAB, the output is:
One-way ANOVA: TotalScore versus Treatment

Source
Treatment
Error
Total
S = 3.016
Level
C
DM
H
N
37
33
35
DF
2
102
104
SS
318.51
927.72
1246.23
R-Sq = 25.56%
Mean
6.514
8.333
10.714
StDev
2.940
3.256
2.855
MS
159.25
9.10
F
17.51
P
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 24.10%
Pooled StDev
-----+---------+---------+---------+---(-----*-----)
(-----*------)
(-----*-----)
-----+---------+---------+---------+---6.4
8.0
9.6
11.2
Pooled StDev = 3.016

To determine if differences exist in the mean improvement scores among the 3 treatment groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
The test statistic is F = 17.51 and the p-value = 0.000.
Since the observed p-value (0.000) is less than any reasonable significance level, H0 is rejected. There is
sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the mean improvement scores among the three levels of
dosage for any reasonable value of .
480
8.33
Chapter 8
To determine if the mean THICKNESS differs among the 4 types of housing, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
The test statistic is F = 11.74 and the p-value = 0.000. Since the observed p-value (0.000) is less than any
reasonable significance level, Ho is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the
mean thickness among the four levels of housing for any reasonable value of .
To determine if the mean WHIPPING CAPACITY differs among the 4 types of housing, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
The test statistic is F = 31.36 and the p-value = 0.000. Since the observed p-value (0.000) is less than any
reasonable significance level, Ho is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the
mean whipping capacity among the four levels of housing for any reasonable value of .
To determine if the mean STRENGTH differs among the 4 types of housing, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
The test statistic is F = 1.70 and the p-value = 0.193. Since the observed p-value (0.193) is higher than any
reasonable significance level, H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in
the mean strength among the four levels of housing for any reasonable value of .
Thus, the mean thickness and the mean percent overrun differ among the 4 housing systems.
3
n x
i i
8.34
a.
i 1
76
26(10.5)25(3.9) 25(1.4) 405.5
5.3355
76
76
SST
n (x x)
i
26(10.5 5.3355) 2 25(3.9 5.3355) 2 25(1.4 5.3355) 2 1132.1941
i 1
b.
2
2
2
SSE = (n1 1) s1 (n2 1) s2 (n3 1) s3 = (26 1) (7.6)2+ (25 1) (7.5)2 + (25 1) (7.5)2
= 1444 + 1350 + 1350 = 4144
c.
SS(Total) = SST + SSE = 1132.1941 + 4144 = 5276.1941

MST
SST 1132.1942
566.0971
k 1
3 1
MSE
SSE
4144
56.7671
n k 76 3
MST 566.0971
9.97
MSE
56.7671
481
The ANOVA table is:

Source
df
SS
MS
566.0971
Groups
1132.1941
Error
73
4144.00
Total
d.
75
F-value
9.97
5276.1941
56.77
To determine if the mean anxiety levels differ among the 3 groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
and 2 = n k = 76 3 = 73. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 = 4.92. The rejection region is
F > 4.92.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does fall in the rejection region (F = 9.97 > 4.92), H0 is
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the mean anxiety levels among the
three groups at = .01.
e.
The assumption of constant variance is satisfied since the three sample variances are all very
similar (7.62 = 57.76, 7.52 = 56.25, and 7.52 = 56.25).
We are unable to check the normality assumption since we need the individual anxiety levels
to create a histogram or stem-and-leaf plot.
8.35
The number of pairwise comparisons is equal to k(k 1)/2.

a.
For k = 3, the number of comparisons is 3(3 1)/2 = 3.
b.
c.
d.
8.36
The experimentwise error rate is the probability of making a Type I error for at least one of all of the
comparisons made. If the experimentwise error rate is = .05, then each individual comparison is made at
a value of which is less than .05.
8.37
A comparisonwise error rate is the error rate (or the probability of declaring the means different when, in
fact, they are not different, which is also the probability of a Type I error) for each individual comparison.
That is, if each comparison is run using = .05, then the comparisonwise error rate is .05.
482
8.38
Chapter 8
a.
From the diagram, the following pairs of treatments are significantly different because they are not
connected by a line: A and E, A and B, A and D, C and E, C and B, C and D, and E and D. All other
pairs of means are not significantly different because they are connected by lines.
b.
connected by a line: A and B, A and D, C and B, C and D, E and B, E and D, and B and D. All
other pairs of means are not significantly different because they are connected by lines.
c.
connected by a line: A and E, A and B, and A and D. All other pairs of means are not significantly
different because they are connected by lines.
d.
connected by a line: A and E, A and B, A and D, C and E, C and B, C and D, E and D, and B and D.
All other pairs of means are not significantly different because they are connected by lines.
(1 2): (2, 15)
Since all values in the interval are positive, 1 is significantly greater

than 2.
(1 3): (4, 7)
Since all values in the interval are positive, 1 is significantly greater

than 3.
(1 4): (-10, 3)
Since 0 is in the interval, 1 is not significantly different from 4.

However, since the center of the interval is less than 0, 4 is larger than 1.
(2 3): (-5, 11)
Since 0 is in the interval, 2 is not significantly different from 3.

However, since the center of the interval is greater than 0, 2 is larger than 3.
(2 4): (12, 6)
Since all values in the interval are negative, 4 is significantly greater

than 2.
(3 4): (8, 5)
8.39
Since all values in the interval are negative, 4 is significantly greater

than 3.
Thus, the largest mean is 4 followed by 1, 2,and 3.

8.40
The test statistic is F = 22.68 and the p-value is p = 0.001. Since the observed p-value (0.001) is less
than any reasonable -level we select (.01, .05, or .10), we reject H0. There is sufficient evidence to
indicate a difference in the mean number of alternatives listed among the three emotional states for
any > .001.
b.
The probability of declaring at least one pair of means different when they are not is .05.
c.
8.41
a.
The mean number of alternatives listed under the guilty state is significantly higher than mean
number of alternatives listed under the angry and neutral states. There is no difference in the mean
number of alternatives listed under the angry and neutral states.
The mean response for Division I coaches is significantly higher than the mean
responses for the Division II and Division III coaches. There is no difference in the mean
responses between Division II and Division III coaches.
8.42
483
a.
Tukeys multiple comparison method is preferred over other methods because it controls
experimental error at the chosen level. It is more powerful than the other methods.
From the confidence interval comparing large-cap and medium-cap mutual funds, we find that 0 is in
the interval. Thus, 0 is not an unusual value for the difference in the mean rates of return between
large-cap and medium-cap mutual funds. This means we would not reject H0. There is insufficient
evidence of a difference in mean rates of return between large-cap and medium-cap mutual funds at
= .05.
c.
From the confidence interval comparing large-cap and small-cap mutual funds, we find that 0 is not
in the interval. Thus, 0 is an unusual value for the difference in the mean rates of return between
large-cap and small-cap mutual funds. This means we would reject H0. There is sufficient evidence
of a difference in mean rates of return between large-cap and small-cap mutual funds at = .05.
d.
From the confidence interval comparing medium-cap and small-cap mutual funds, we find that 0 is in
the interval. Thus, 0 is not an unusual value for the difference in the mean rates of return between
medium-cap and small-cap mutual funds. This means we would not reject H0. There is insufficient
evidence of a difference in mean rates of return between medium-cap and small-cap mutual funds at
= .05.
e.
From the above, the mean rate of return for large-cap mutual funds is the largest, followed by
medium-cap, followed by small-cap mutual funds. The mean rate of return for large-cap funds is
significantly larger than that for small-cap funds. No other differences exist.
f.
We are 95% confident of this decision.
a.
The Bonferroni method is preferred over other multiple comparisons methods because it does not
require equal sample sizes. The five groups of employees do not have the same sample sizes. In
addition, it is more powerful than Scheffes method.
b.
The number of pairwise comparisons for this analysis is:

k (k 1) 5(5 1) 20
c
10
2
2
2
c.
8.45
The mean energy expended by robots in the 12 robot colony is significantly smaller than the mean
energy expended by robots in any of the other size colonies. There is no difference in the mean
energy expended by robots in the 3 robot colony, the 6 robot colony, and the 9 robot colony.
b.
8.44
The total number of comparisons conducted is k(k 1)/2 = 4(4 1)/2 = 6.
b.
8.43
a.
The mean ethics scores for both Groups 4 and 5 are significantly higher than the mean ethics scores
for Groups 1, 2, and 3. There is no difference in the mean ethics scores between Group 4 and Group
5. There is no difference in the mean ethics scores among Groups 1, 2 and 3.
a.
The probability of declaring at least one pair of means different when they are not is .01.
b.
There are a total of
k (k 1) 3(3 1)
3 pair-wise comparisons. They are:

2
2
Under $30 thousand to Between $30 and $60 thousand

Under $30 thousand to Over $60 thousand
Between $30 and $60 thousand to Over $60 thousand
484
Chapter 8
c.
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed in the table:

Subsets
Income
Group
Under $30,000
$30,000-$60,000
Over $60,000
d.
N
379
392
267
1
4.60
2
5.08
5.15
Two of the comparisons in part b will yield confidence intervals that do not contain 0. They are:
Under $30 thousand to Between $30 and $60 thousand
Under $30 thousand to Over $60 thousand
8.46
From Exercise 8.30, we found that there were differences in the mean carats among the 6 levels of color
From Exercise 8.30, the mean carats for the 6 colors are:
G
F
E
D
H
I
0.5808
0.5929
0.6232
0.6381
0.6734
0.7310
Using MINITAB, the Tukey confidence intervals are:

Tukey's pairwise comparisons
Family error rate = 0.100
Individual error rate = 0.0101
Critical value = 3.66
Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean)
D
-0.1926
0.2225
-0.1491
0.2395
-0.1026
0.1631
-0.1411
0.2558
-0.0964
0.1812
-0.1059
0.1302
-0.2350
0.1644
-0.1909
0.0904
-0.2007
0.0397
-0.2194
0.0341
-0.3032
0.1174
-0.2631
0.0475
-0.2752
-0.0010
-0.2931
-0.0074
-0.2022
0.0871
There are only 2 intervals that do not contain 0.

The confidence interval for the difference in mean carats between colors G and I is (0.2931, 0.0074).
The confidence interval for the difference in mean carats between colors F and I is (0.2752, 0.0010).
Since 0 is not contained in these confidence intervals, there is sufficient evidence of a difference in the
mean number of carats between colors G and I and between colors F and I. No other differences exist.
485
8.47
The mean level of trust for the "no close" technique is significantly higher than that for the "assumed close"
and the "either-or" techniques. The mean level of trust for the "impending event" technique is significantly
higher than that for the "either-or" technique. No other significant differences exist.
8.48
Using MINITAB, the multiple comparisons of the means is shown below:

Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals
All Pairwise Comparisons
Individual confidence level = 98.06%
Honey subtracted from:
DM
Control
Lower
-4.120
-5.890
Center
-2.381
-4.201
Upper
-0.642
-2.511
----+---------+---------+---------+----(-----*------)
(------*------)
----+---------+---------+---------+-----5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
Upper
-0.104
----+---------+---------+---------+----(------*------)
----+---------+---------+---------+-----5.0
-2.5
0.0
2.5
DM subtracted from:
Control
Lower
-3.535
Center
-1.820
None of the three confidence intervals contain 0:

The confidence interval for the difference in mean improvement scores between DM and Honey is (4.120
and -0.642). Since this confidence interval is strictly below zero, this implies that the improvement scores
for Honey are significantly higher than those of DM.
The confidence interval for the difference in mean improvement scores between the Control group and
Honey is (5.890 and 2.511). Since this confidence interval is strictly below zero, this implies that the
improvement scores for Honey are significantly higher than those of the Control Group.
Compared to the Control group (giving no treatment) and DM, honey is a preferable treatment since it has
significantly higher improvement scores. The state is appropriate.
8.49
a.
The confidence interval for (CAGE BARN) is (.1250, .0323). Since 0 is not contained in this
interval, there is sufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between cage and barn egg
housing systems. Since this interval is negative, this implies that the thickness is larger for the barn
egg housing system.
b.
The confidence interval for (CAGE FREE) is (.1233, .0307). Since 0 is not contained in this
interval, there is sufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between cage and free
range egg housing systems. Since this interval is negative, this implies that the thickness is larger for
the free range egg housing system.
c.
The confidence interval for (CAGE ORGANIC) is (.1050, .0123). Since 0 is not contained in this
interval, there is sufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between cage and organic
egg housing systems. Since this interval is negative, this implies that the thickness is larger for the
organic egg housing system.
d.
The confidence interval for (BARN FREE) is (.0501, .0535). Since 0 is contained in this interval,
there is insufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between barn and free range egg
housing systems. Since the center of the interval is greater than 0, the sample mean for barn is
greater than that for free range.
486
Chapter 8
e.
f.
The confidence interval for (FREE ORGANIC) is (.0335, .0701). Since 0 is contained in this
interval, there is insufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between free range and
organic egg housing systems. Since the center of the interval is greater than 0, the sample mean for
free range is greater than that for organic.
g.
We rank the housing system means as follows:

Housing System: Cage < Organic < Free < Barn
We are 95% confident that the mean shell thickness for the cage housing system is significantly less
than the mean thickness for the other three housing systems. There is no significant difference in the
mean shell thicknesses among the barn, free range and organic housing systems.
a.
There are 3 blocks used since Block df = b 1 = 2 and 5 treatments since the treatment df = k 1 = 4.
b.
There were 15 observations since the Total df = n 1 = 14.
c.
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
d.
The test statistic is F =
e.
The rejection region requires = .01 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 = k 1 = 5 1 = 4
and 2 = n k b + 1 = 15 5 3 + 1 = 8. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 = 7.01. The rejection
region is F > 7.01.
f.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that at least two treatment means differ at = .01.
g.
8.50
The confidence interval for (BARN ORGANIC) is (.0318, .0718). Since 0 is contained in this
interval, there is insufficient evidence of a difference in the mean thickness between barn and organic
egg housing systems. Since the center of the interval is greater than 0, the sample mean for barn is
greater than that for organic.
The assumptions necessary to assure the validity of the test are as follows:
1.
2.
8.51
a.
MST
= 9.109
MSE
The probability distributions of observations corresponding to all the block-treatment

combinations are normal.
The variances of all the probability distributions are equal.
df = k 1 = 3 1 = 2
df = b 1 = 3 1 = 2
df = n k b + 1 = 9 3 3 + 1 = 4
df = n 1 = 9 1 = 8
Treatment
Block
Error
Total
b
SSB =
i 1
Bi2
CM from Appendix B
k
x
where CM =
i
492
= 266.7778
9
17
15
17 2
266.7778 = .8889
3
3
3
SSE = SS(Total) SST SSB = 30.2222 21.5555 .8889 = 7.7778
SSB =
487
MST =
SST 21.5555
SSB .8889
= 10.7778 MSB =
= .4445
k 1
b 1
2
2
MSE =
SSE
7.7778
= 1.9445
n k b 1
4
FT =
MST 10.7778
= 5.54
MSE 1.9445
FB =
MSB .4445
= .23
MSE 1.9445
The ANOVA table is:

Source
Treatment
Block
Error
Total
df
2
2
4
8
SS
21.5555
.8889
7.7778
30.2222
MS
10.7778
.4445
1.9445
F
5.54
.23
b.
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 vs Ha: At least two treatment means differ
c.
d.
A Type I error would be concluding at least two treatment means differ when they do not.
MST
= 5.54
MSE
A Type II error would be concluding all the treatment means are the same when at least two differ.
e.
and 2 = n k b + 1 = 9 3 3 + 1 = 4. From Table VIII, Appendix A,
F.05 = 6.94. The rejection region is F > 6.94.
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate at least two of the treatment means differ
at = .05.
8.52
a.
The ANOVA Table is as follows:

Source
Treatment
Block
Error
Total
b.
df
2
3
6
11
SS
12.032
71.749
.708
84.489
MS
6.016
23.916
.118
F
50.958
202.586
To determine if the treatment means differ, we test:

H0: A = B = C
MST
= 50.958
MSE
and 2 = n k b + 1 = 12 3 4 + 1 = 6. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 5.14. The rejection
region is F > 5.14.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the treatment means differ at = .05.
488
Chapter 8
c.
To see if the blocking was effective, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least two block means differ
MSB
= 202.586
MSE
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with
1 = k 1 = 4 1 = 3 and 2 = n k b + 1 = 12 3 4 + 1 = 6. From Table VIII,
Appendix B, F.05 = 4.76. The rejection region is F > 4.76.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that blocking was effective in reducing the
experimental error at = .05.
d.
From the printouts, we are given the differences in the sample means. The difference between
Treatment B and both Treatments A and C are positive (1.125 and 2.450), so Treatment B has the
largest sample mean. The difference between Treatment A and C is positive (1.325), so Treatment A
has a larger sample mean than Treatment C. So Treatment B has the largest sample mean, Treatment
A has the next largest sample mean and Treatment C has the smallest sample mean.
From the printout, all the means are significantly different from each other.
e.
The assumptions necessary to assure the validity of the inferences above are:
1.
2.
8.53
a.
The probability distributions of observations corresponding to all the block-treatment

combinations are normal.
SST = .2(500) = 100

SSB = .3(500) = 150
SSE = SS(Total) SST SSB = 500 100 150 = 250
SST 100
=
= 33.3333
k 1 4 1
SSE
250
=
=
MSE =
n k b + 1 36 4 9 + 1
MST 33.3333
FT =
= 3.20
=
MSE 10.4167
MST =
MSB =
SSB 150
=
= 18.75
b 1 9 1
250
= 10.4167
4
MSB
18.75
FB =
= 1.80
=
MSE 10.4167
To determine if differences exist among the treatment means, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5

and 2 = n k b + 1 = 36 4 9 + 1 = 24. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 3.01. The rejection
region is F > 3.01.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences among the treatment means at = .05.
489
To determine if differences exist among the block means, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9

The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 = b 1 = 9 1 = 8
and 2 = n b k + 1 = 36 9 4 + 1 = 24. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 2.36. The rejection
region is F > 2.36.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region
(F = 1.80 > 2.36), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate differences among
/
the block means at = .05.
b.
SST = .5(500) = 250

SSB = .2(500) = 100
SST 250
SSB 100
=
= 83.3333
MSB =
=
= 12.5
k 1 4 1
b 1 9 1
SSE
150
MSE =
=
= 6.25
n k b + 1 36 4 9 + 1
MSB 12.5
MST 83.3333
FT =
=
= 13.33
FB =
=
=2
MSE 6.25
MSE
6.25
MST =

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

The rejection region is F > 3.01 (same as above).
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the treatment means at = .05.
H0: 1 = 2 = = 9

(F = 2.00 > 2.36), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate differences exist
/
among the block means at = .05.
490
Chapter 8
c.
SST = .2(500) = 100

SSB = .5(500) = 250
SST 100
SSB 250
=
= 33.3333
MSB =
=
= 31.25
k 1 4 1
b 1 9 1
SSE
150
MSE =
=
= 6.25
n k b + 1 36 4 9 + 1
MSB 31.25
MST 33.3333
FT =
=
= 5.33
FB =
=
= 5.00
MSE 6.25
MSE
6.25
MST =

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the treatment means at
= .05.
H0: 1 = 2 = = 9

rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the block means at = .05.
d.
SST = .4(500) = 200

SSB = .4(500) = 200
SST 200
SSB 200
=
= 66.6667
MSB =
= 25
=
k 1 4 1
b 1 9 1
SSE
100
MSE =
=
= 4.1667
n k b + 1 36 4 9 + 1
MST =
FT =
MST 66.6667
=
= 16.0
MSE
4.1667
FB =
MSB
25
=
= 6.00
MSE 4.1667

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

491
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences among the treatment means at = .05.
H0: 1 = 2 = = 9

rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the block means at = .05.
e.
SST = .2(500) = 100

SSB = .2(500) = 100
SST 100
SSB 100
=
= 33.3333
MSB =
= 12.5
=
k 1 4 1
b 1 9 1
SSE
300
MSE =
=
= 12.5
n k b + 1 36 4 9 + 1
MST 33.3333
MSB 12.5
FT =
=
= 2.67
FB =
=
= 1.00
MSE
12.5
MSE 12.5
MST =

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

(F = 2.67 > 3.01), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate differences exist
/
among the treatment means at = .05.
H0: 1 = 2 = = 9

(F = 1.00 > 2.36), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate differences among
/
the block means at = .05.
492
8.54
Chapter 8
a.
This experimental design is a randomized block design because in part B, the same subjects provided
WTP amounts for insuring both a sculpture and a painting. Each subject had 2 responses.
b.
The dependent (response) variable is the WTP amount. The treatments are the two scenarios
(sculpture and painting). The blocks are the 84 subjects.
c.
To determine if there is a difference in the mean WTM amounts between sculptures and paintings,
we test:
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
8.55
a.
A randomized block design should be used to analyze the data because the same employees were
measured at all three time periods. Thus, the blocks are the employees and the treatments are the
three time periods.
b.
There is still enough information in the table to make a conclusion because the p-values are given.
c.
To determine if there are differences in the mean competence levels among the three time periods,
we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
d.
e.
8.56
The p-value is p = 0.001. At a significance level > .001, we reject H0. There is sufficient evidence to
conclude that there is a difference in the mean competence levels among the three time periods for
any value of > 0.001.
With 90% confidence, the mean competence before the training is significantly less than the mean
competence 2-days after and 2-months after. There is no significant difference in the mean
competence between 2-days after and 2-months after.
a.
This is a randomized block design. The blocks are the 12 plots of land. The treatments are the three
methods used on the shrubs: fire, clipping, and control. The response variable is the mean number of
flowers produced. The experimental units are the 36 shrubs.
493
b.
Plot
c.
To determine if there is a difference in the mean number of flowers produced among the three
treatments, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
Ha: The mean number of flowers produced differ for at least two of the methods.
The test statistic is F = 5.42 and p = .009. We can reject the null hypothesis at the
> .009 level of significance. At least two of the methods differ with respect to mean number of
flowers produced by pawpaws.
d.
8.57
The means of Clipping and Burning do not differ significantly. The means of treatment Burning and
treatment Clipping exceeds that of the Control.
a.
The time of the year (month) could affect the number of rigs running, so a
randomized complete block design was used to block out the month to month variation.
b.
There are 3 treatments in this experiment. They are the three states California, Utah, and Alaska.
c.
There are 3 blocks in this experiment the three months selected: November 2000, October 2001,
and November 2001.
d.
To determine if there is a difference in the mean number of rigs running among the three states, we
test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
e.
From the printout, the test statistic is F = 38.07 and the p-value is p = 0.002. Since the p-value is so
small, we would reject H0 for any value of > .002. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a
difference in the mean number of oil rigs running among the three states.
f.
From the SPSS printout, there is no significant difference in the mean number of oil rigs running in
Alaska and Utah. However, both of these states have a significantly smaller number of rigs running
than does California. Thus, California has the largest mean number of oil rigs running.
494
8.58
Chapter 8
Using SAS, the ANOVA Table is:

The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: temp
Source
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
11
18.53700000
1.68518182
0.52
0.8634
Error
18
58.03800000
3.22433333
Corrected Total
29
76.57500000
R-Square
Coeff Var
Root MSE
temp Mean
0.242076
1.885189
1.795643
95.25000
Source
DF
Anova SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
STUDENT
PLANT
9
2
18.41500000
0.12200000
2.04611111
0.06100000
0.63
0.02
0.7537
0.9813
To determine if there are differences among the mean temperatures among the three treatments, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
The test statistic is F = 0.02. The associated p-value is p = .9813. Since the p-value is very large, there is
no evidence of a difference in mean temperature among the three treatments. Since there is no difference,
we do not need to compare the means. It appears that the presence of plants or pictures of plants does not
reduce stress.
8.59

Two-way ANOVA: Rate versus Week, Day
Analysis of Variance for Rate
Source
DF
SS
Week
8
575.2
Day
4
94.2
Error
32
376.9
Total
44
1046.4
Day
1
2
3
4
5
Mean
8.8
4.6
5.8
5.4
6.4
MS
71.9
23.5
11.8
F
6.10
2.00
P
0.000
0.118
Individual 95% CI
-+---------+---------+---------+---------+
(--------*---------)
(--------*---------)
(--------*--------)
(--------*---------)
(---------*--------)
-+---------+---------+---------+---------+
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
To determine if there is a difference in mean rate of absenteeism among the 5 days of the week, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5

Since no was given, we will select = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the
F distribution with 1 = k 1 = 5 1 = 4 and 2 = n k b + 1 = 45 5 9 + 1 = 32. From Table VIII,
Appendix B, F.05, 4, 32 2.69. The rejection region is F > 2.69.
495
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region (F = 2.00 > 2.69), H0 is
/
not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean rate of absenteeism among the
5 days of the week at = .05.
To test for the effectiveness of blocking, we test:
H0: All block means are the same

The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 = b 1 = 9 1 = 8 and
2 = n k b + 1 = 45 5 9 + 1 = 32. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05, 8, 32 2.27. The rejection
region is F > 2.27.
Since the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (F = 6.10 > 2.27), H0 is rejected.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate blocking was effective at = .05.
8.60
a.
The experimenters expected there to be much variation in the number of participants from week to
week (more participants at the beginning and fewer as time goes on). Thus, by blocking on weeks,
this extraneous source of variation can be controlled.
b.
df(Week) = b 1 = 6 1 = 5
SST 1185.0
MS(Prompt) =
= 296.25
df
4
MST 296.25
= 39.87
F(Prompt) =
MSE
7.43
The ANOVA table is:
Source
Prompt
Week
Error
Total
c.
df
4
5
20
29
SS
1185.0
386.4
148.6
1720.0
MS
296.25
77.28
7.43
F
39.87
10.40
p
0.0001
0.0001
To determine if a difference exists in the mean number of walkers per week among the five walker
groups, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
where i represents the mean number of walkers in group i.

and 2 = n k b + 1 = 30 4 6 + 1 = 20. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 2.69. The
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the mean number of
walkers per week among the 5 walker groups at = .05.
496
Chapter 8
d.
The following conclusions are drawn:

The mean number of walkers per week in the "Frequent/High" group is significantly higher than the
mean number of walkers per week in the "Infrequent/Low" group, the "Infrequent/High" group, and
the "Control" group. The mean number of walkers per week in the "Frequent/Low" group is
significantly higher than the mean number of walkers per week in the "Infrequent/Low" group, the
"Infrequent/High" group, and the "Control" group. The mean number of walkers per week in the
"Infrequent/Low" group is significantly higher than the mean number of walkers per week in the
"Control" group. The mean number of walkers per week in the "Infrequent/High" group is
significantly higher than the mean number of walkers per week in the "Control group.
e.
In order for the above inferences to be valid, the following assumptions must hold:
1)
2)
8.61
The probability distributions of observations corresponding to all block-treatment conditions

are normal.

Two-way ANOVA: Corrosion versus Time, System
Source
Time
System
Error
Total
DF
2
3
6
11
S = 0.3060
System
1
2
3
4
SS
63.1050
9.5833
0.5617
73.2500
MS
31.5525
3.1944
0.0936
R-Sq = 99.23%
Mean
9.0667
9.7333
11.0667
8.7333
F
337.06
34.12
P
0.000
0.000
R-Sq(adj) = 98.59%

Pooled StDev
------+---------+---------+---------+--(----*-----)
(-----*----)
(----*-----)
(----*-----)
------+---------+---------+---------+--8.80
9.60
10.40
11.20
To determine if there is a difference in mean corrosion rates among the 4 systems, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4

Since no level was given, we will select = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail
of the F distribution with 1 = k 1 = 4 1 = 3 and 2 = n k b + 1 = 12 4 3 + 1 = 6. From Table
VIII, Appendix B, F.05, 3, 6 = 4.76. The rejection region is F > 4.76.
497
There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean corrosion rates among the 4 systems at = .05.
Using SAS, Tukeys multiple comparison results are:
Tukey's Studentized Range (HSD) Test for CORROSION
NOTE: This test controls the Type I experimentwise error rate, but it generally has a higher
Type II error rate than REGWQ.
Alpha
0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom
6
Error Mean Square
0.093611
Critical Value of Studentized Range 4.89559
Minimum Significant Difference
0.8648
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
Tukey Grouping
Mean
SYSTEM
11.0667
B
B
B
9.7333
9.0667
8.7333
C
C
C
The mean corrosion rate for system 3 is significantly larger than all of the other mean corrosion rates. The
mean corrosion rate of system 2 is significantly larger than the mean for system 4. If we want the system
(epoxy coating) with the lowest corrosion rate, we would pick either system 1 or system 4. There is no
significant difference between these two groups and they are in the lowest corrosion rate group.
8.62
a.
There are two factors.
b.
No, we cannot tell whether the factors are qualitative or quantitative.
c.
Yes. There are four levels of factor A and three levels of factor B.
d.
A treatment would consist of a combination of one level of factor A and one level of factor B. There
are a total of 4 3 = 12 treatments.
One problem with only one replicate is there are no degrees of freedom for error. This is overcome
by having at least two replicates.
e.
498
8.63
Chapter 8
a.
The ANOVA table is:

Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
df
2
3
6
12
23
SS
.8
5.3
9.6
1.3
17.0
MS
.4000
1.7667
1.6000
.1083
F
3.69
16.31
14.77
df for A is a 1 = 3 1 = 2
df for B = b 1 = 4 1 = 3
df for AB is (a 1)(b 1) = 2(3) = 6
df for Error is n ab = 24 3(4) = 12
df for Total is n 1 = 24 1 = 23
SSE = SS(Total) SSA SSB SSAB = 17.0 .8 5.3 9.6 = 1.3
SS A
.8
SSB 5.3
MSA =
= .40 MSB =
= 1.7667
a 1 3 1
b 1 4 1
SS AB
9.6
= 1.60
MSAB =
(a 1)(b 1) (3 1)(4 1)
SSE
1.3
MSE =
= .1083
n ab
24 3(4)
MS A .4000
MSB 1.7667
=
= 3.69
FB =
=
= 16.31
FA =
MSE .1083
MSE .1083
MS AB 1.6000
=
= 14.77
FAB =
MSE
.1083
b.
Sum of Squares for Treatment = SSA + SSB + SSAB = .8 = 5.3 + 2.6 = 15.7
MST =
SST
15.7
= 1.4273
ab 1 3(4) 1
FT =
MST 1.4273
=
= 13.18
MSE .1083

H0: 1 = 2 = = 12
Ha: At least two treatments means differ
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = ab 1 = 3(4)
1 = 11 and 2 = n ab = 24 3(4) = 12. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.75. The rejection
region is F > 2.75.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the treatment means differ at = .05.
c.
Yes. We need to partition the Treatment Sum of Squares into the Main Effects and Interaction Sum
of Squares. Then we test whether factors A and B interact. Depending on the conclusion of the test
for interaction, we either test for main effects or compare the treatment means.
499
d.
Two factors are said to interact if the effect of one factor on the dependent variable is not the same at
different levels of the second factor. If the factors interact, then tests for main effects are not
necessary. We need to compare the treatment means for one factor at each level of the second.
e.
To determine if the factors interact, we test:

H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the response mean
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the response mean
MS AB
= 14.77
MSE
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = (a 1)(b 1) =
(3 1)(4 1) = 6 and 2 = n ab = 24 3(4) = 12. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 3.00. The
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the two factors interact to affect the response mean
at = .05.
f.
8.64
No. Testing for main effects is not warranted because interaction is present. Instead, we compare the
treatment means of one factor at each level of the second factor.
a.
Factor A has 3 + 1 = 4 levels and factor B has 1 + 1 = 2 levels.
b.
There are a total of 23 + 1 = 24 observations and 4 2 = 8 treatments. Therefore, there were 24/8 =
3 observations for each treatment.
c.
AB
df = (a 1)(b 1) = (4 1)(2 1) = 3
Error df = n ab = 24 4(2) = 16
SS A
SSA = (a 1)MSA = (4 1)(.75) = 2.25
a 1
SSB .95
= .95
MSB =
b 1 2 1
SS AB
SSAB = (a 1)(b 1)MSAB = (4 1)(2 1)(.30) = .9
MSAB =
(a 1)(b 1)
SSE = SS(Total) SSA SSB SSAB = 6.5 2.25 .95 .9 = 2.4
SSE
2.4
MSE =
= .15
n ab 24 - 4(2)
MSA =
SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 2.25 + .95 + .90 = 4.1

Treatment df = ab 1 = 4(2) 1 = 7
SST 4.1
MST
.5857
MST =
= .5857 FT =
= 3.90
ab 1 7
MSE
.15
MSA
.75
=
= 5.00
MSE
.15
MSAB
.30
=
= 2.00
FAB =
MSE
.15
FA =
FB =
MSB .95
=
= 6.33
MSE .15
500
Chapter 8
The ANOVA table is:

Source
Treatments
A
B
AB
Error
Total
d.
df
7
3
1
3
16
23
SS
4.1
2.25
.95
.90
2.40
6.50
MS
.59
.75
.95
.30
.15
F
3.90
5.00
6.33
2.00
To determine whether the treatment means differ, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = = 8
MST
= 3.90
MSE
1 = 7 and 2 = n ab = 24 4(2) = 16. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 2.13. The rejection
region is F > 2.13.
e.
To determine if the factors interact, we test:

H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the response mean
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the response mean
(4 1)(2 1) = 3 and 2 = n ab = 24 4(2) = 16. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 2.46. The
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate factors A and B interact at = .10.
To determine if the four means of factor A differ, we test:
H0: There is no difference in the four means of factor A
Ha: At least two of the factor A means differ
The rejection region requires = .10 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = a 1 = 4 1 =
3 and 2 = n ab = 24 - 4(2) = 16. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 2.46. The rejection region is
F > 2.46.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate at least two of the four means of factor A differ at
= .10.
501
To determine if the 2 means of factor B differ, we test:

H0: There is no difference in the two means of factor B
Ha: At least two of the factor B means differ
The rejection region requires = .10 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = b 1 = 2 1 = 1
and 2 = n ab = 24 4(2) = 16. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 3.05. The rejection region is
F > 3.05.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the two means of factor B differ at = .10.
All of the tests performed are warranted because interaction was not significant.
8.65
a.
The treatments for this experiment consist of a

level for factor A and a level for factor B. There
are six treatments(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 1),
(2, 2), and (2, 3) where the first number
represents the level of factor A and the second
number represents the level of factor B.
The treatment means appear to be different
because the sample means are quite different.
The factors appear to interact because the lines
are not parallel.
b.
SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 4.4408 + 4.1267 + 18.0667 = 26.5742

SST
26.5742
MST
5.315
=
= 21.62
=
= 5.315
FT =
MST =
ab 1
2(3) 1
MSE
.246
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6
MST
= 21.62
MSE
1 = 5 and 2 = n ab = 12 2(3) = 6. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 4.39. The rejection
region is F > 4.39.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the treatment means differ at = .05. This
supports the plot in a.
502
Chapter 8
c.
Yes. Since there are differences among the treatment means, we test for interaction. To determine
whether the factors A and B interact, we test:
H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the mean response
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the mean response
MSAB 9.0033
=
= 36.62
MSE .24583
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with
1 = (a 1)(b 1) = (2 1)(3 1) = 2 and 2 = n ab = 12 2(3) = 6. From Table VIII, Appendix
B, F.05 = 5.14. The rejection region is F > 5.14.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that factors A and B interact to affect the response
mean at = .05.
d.
e.
8.66
No. Because interaction is present, the tests for main effects are not warranted.
The results of the tests in parts b and c support the visual interpretation in part a.
a.
The treatments are the combinations of the levels of factor A and the levels of factor B. There are 2
2 = 4 treatments. The treatment means are:
x11
x21
11
2
x21
29.6 35.2
= 32.4 x12
2
12.9 17.6
= 15.25
2
12
2
x22
47.3 42.1
2
x22 28.4 22.7
2
2
The factors do not appear to interactthe lines

are almost parallel. The treatment means do
appear to differ because the sample means range
from 15.25 to 44.7.
b.
x
CM =
SS(Total) =
SSA =
2
i
br
B
SSB =
2
i
ar
503
235.82
8
CM = 7922.92 6950.205 = 972.715
CM=
154.22 81.62
= 7609.05 6950.205 = 658.845

2(2)
2(2)
CM=
95.32 140.52
= 7205.585 6950.205 = 255.38
2(2)
2(2)
AB
SSAB =
2
ij
SSA SSB CM =
64.82 89.42 30.52 51.12
2
4
2
2
658.845 255.38 6950.205 = 7866.43 7864.43 = 2

SSE = SS(Total) SSA SSB SSAB = 972.715 658.845 255.38 2 = 56.49
df = a 1 = 2 1 = 1
df = b 1 = 2 1 = 1
df = (a 1)(b 1) = (2 1)(2 1) = 1
df = n ab = 8 2(2) = 4
df = n 1 = 8 1 = 7
A
B
AB
Error
Total
SSA 658.845
= 658.845
a 1
1
SSAB
2
MSAB =
=2
(a 1)(b 1) 1
MSA 658.845
=
= 46.65
FA =
MSE 14.1225
MSAB
2
FAB =
.14
MSE 14.1225
MSA =
SSB 255.38
= 255.38
b 1
1
SSE 56.49
MSE =
=
= 14.1225
n - ab
4
MSB 255.38
FB =
18.08
MSE 14.1225
MSB =
The ANOVA table is:

Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
c.
df
1
1
1
4
7
SS
658.845
255.380
2.000
56.490
972.715
MS
658.845
255.380
2.000
14.1225
F
46.65
18.08
.14
SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 658.845 + 255.380 + 2.000 = 916.225

df = ab 1 = 2(2) 1 = 3
SST 916.225
MST =
=
= 305.408
ab 1
3
FT =
MST
305.408
=
= 21.63
MSE
14.1225
504
Chapter 8

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least two of the treatment means differ
region is F > 6.59.
This agrees with the conclusion in part a.
d.
Since there are differences among the treatment means, we test for the presence of interaction:
H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the response means
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the response means
The test statistic is F = .14.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region (F = .14 7.71), H0
is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the factors interact at = .05.
e.
Since the interaction was not significant, we test for main effects.
To determine whether the two means of factor A differ, we test:
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = a 1 = 2 1 = 1
and 2 = n ab = 8 2(2) = 4. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 7.71. The rejection region is F
> 7.71.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the two means of factor A differ at = .05.
To determine whether the two means of factor B differ, we test:
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
505
and 2 = n ab = 8 2(2) = 4. From TableVIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 7.71. The rejection region is
F > 7.71.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the two means of factor B differ at = .05.
f.
The results of all the tests agree with those in part a.
g.
Since no interaction is present, but the means of both factors A and B differ, we compare the two
means of factor A and compare the two means of factor B. Since there are only two means to
compare for each factor, the higher population mean corresponds to the higher sample mean.
Factor A:
x1
x2
br
br
29.6 35.2 47.3 42.1

= 38.55
2(2)
12.9 17.6 28.4 22.7

= 20.4
2(2)
The mean for level 1 of factor A is significantly higher than the mean for level 2.
Factor B:
x1
x2
ar
ar
29.6 35.2 12.9 17.6

= 23.825
2(2)
47.3 42.1 28.4 22.7

= 35.125
2(2)
The mean for level 2 of factor B is significantly higher than the mean for level 1.
8.67
a.
SSA = .2(1000) = 200, SSB = .1(1000) = 100, SSAB = .1(1000) = 100

SSE = SS(Total) SSA SSB SSAB = 1000 200 100 100 = 600
SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 200 + 100 + 100 = 400
SS A 200
SS B 100
MSA =
100
MSB =
50
a 1 3 1
b 1 3 1
SS AB
100
MSAB =
25
(a 1)(b 1) (3 1)(3 1)
SSE
600
SST
400
MSE =
= 33.333
MST =
= 50
n ab 27 3(3)
ab 1 3(3) 1
MS A
100
MSB
50
FA =
=
= 3.00
FB =
=
= 1.50
MSE 33.333
MSE 33.333
MS AB
25
MST
50
=
= .75
FT =
=
= 1.50
FAB =
MSE 33.333
MSE 33.333
Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
df
2
2
4
18
26
SS
200
100
100
600
1000
MS
100
50
25
33.333
F
3.00
1.50
.75
506
Chapter 8

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9
MST
= 1.50
MSE
Suppose = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with
1 = ab 1 = 3(3) 1 = 8 and 2 = n ab = 27 3(3) = 18. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 =
2.51. The rejection region is F > 2.51.
Since the observed value of the test statistic does not fall in the rejection region (F = 1.50 . 2.51), H0
is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate the treatment means differ at = .05. Since
there are no treatment mean differences, we have nothing more to do.
b.
SSA = .1(1000) = 100, SSB = .1(1000) = 100, SSAB = .5(1000) = 500

SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 100 + 100 + 500 = 700
MSA =
SS A 100
50
a 1 3 1
MSAB =
MSE =
FA =
FAB =
MSB =
SS AB
500
125
(a 1)(b 1) (3 1)(3 1)
SSE
300
SST
700
= 16.667 MST =
= 87.5
n ab 27 3(3)
ab 1 9 1
MS A
50
=
= 3.00
MSE 16.667
FB =
MSB
50
=
= 3.00
MSE 16.667
MS AB
125
=
= 7.50
MSE 16.667
Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
SS B 100
50
b 1 3 1
df
2
2
4
18
26
SS
100
100
500
300
1000
FT =
MS
50
50
125
16.667
MST
87.5
=
= 5.25
MSE 16.667
F
3.00
3.00
7.50

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9
MST
= 5.25
MSE
507
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = ab 1
= 3(3) 1 = 8 and 2 = n ab = 27 - 3(3) = 18. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 2.51. The
There is sufficient evidence to indicate the treatment means differ at = .05.
Since the treatment means differ, we next test for interaction between factors A and B. To determine
if factors A and B interact, we test:
MS AB
= 7.50
MSE
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the factors A and B interact at = .05. Since
interaction is present, no tests for main effects are necessary.
c.
SSA = .4(1000) = 400, SSB = .1(1000) = 100, SSAB = .2(1000) = 200

SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 400 + 100 + 200 = 700
SS A 400
SS B 100
MSA =
50
MSB =
50
a 1 3 1
b 1 3 1
SS AB
200
MSAB =
50
(a 1)(b 1) (3 1)(3 1)
SSE
300
SST
700
MSE =
16.667
MST =
87.5
n ab 27 3(3)
ab 1 3(3) 1
MS A
200
MSB
50
FA =
=
= 12.00
FB =
=
= 3.00
MSE 16.667
MSE 16.667
MS AB
50
MST
87.5
=
= 3.00
FT =
=
= 5.25
FAB =
MSE 16.667
MSE 16.667
Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
df
2
2
4
18
26
SS
400
100
200
300
1000
MS
200
50
50
16.667
F
12.00
3.00
3.00

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9
508
Chapter 8
MST
= 5.25
MSE
1 = 8 and 2 = n ab = 27 - 3(3) = 18. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 2.51. The rejection
region is F > 2.51.
MSAB
= 3.00
MSE
d.
SSA = .4(1000) = 400, SSB = .4(1000) = 400, SSAB = .1(1000) = 100

SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 400 + 400 + 100 = 900
SS A 400
SS B 400
MSA =
200
MSB =
200
a 1 3 1
b 1 3 1
SS AB
100
MSAB =
25
(a 1)(b 1) (3 1)(3 1)
SSE
100
SST
900
MSE =
5.556
MST =
112.5
n ab 27 3(3)
ab 1 3(3) 1
MS A
200
MSB
200
FA =
=
= 36.00
FB =
=
= 36.00
MSE 5.556
MSE 5.556
MS AB
25
MST 112.5
=
= 4.50
FT =
=
= 20.25
FAB =
MSE 5.556
MSE 5.556
Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
df
2
2
4
18
26
SS
400
400
100
100
1000
MS
200
200
25
5.556
F
36.00
36.00
4.50
509

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9
MST
= 20.25
MSE
region is F > 2.51.
MS AB
= 4.50
MSE
8.68
a.
There are a total of 2 4 = 8 treatments.
b.
The interaction between temperature and type was significant. This means that the effect of type of
yeast on the mean autolysis yield depends on the level of temperature.
c.
To determine if the main effect of type of yeast is significant, we test:

H0: Ba = Br
Ha: Ba Br
To determine if the main effect of temperature is significant, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least one mean differs
d.
The tests for the main effects should not be run until after the test for interaction is conducted. If
interaction is significant, then these interaction effects could cover up the main effects. Thus, the
main effect tests would not be informative.
If the test for interaction is not significant, then the main effect tests could be run.
510
Chapter 8
e.
Bakers yeast:
The mean yield for temperature 54o is significantly lower than the mean yields for the other 3
temperatures. There is no difference in the mean yields for the temperatures 45o, 48o and 51o.
Brewers yeast:
The mean yield for temperature 54o is significantly lower than the mean yields for theother 3
temperatures. There is no difference in the mean yields for the temperatures 45o, 48o and 51o.
a.
This is a complete 6 6 factorial design.
b.
8.69
There are 2 factors Coagulant and pH level. There are 6 levels of coagulant: 5, 10, 20, 50, 100,
and 200 mg / liter. There are 6 levels of pH: 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 9.0.
There are 6 x 6 = 36 treatments. In the pairs, let the coagulant level be the first number and pH level
the second. The 36 treatments are:
(5, 4.0)
(5, 5.0)
(5, 6.0)
(5, 7.0)
(5, 8.0)
(5, 9.0)
(10, 4.0) (10, 5.0) (10, 6.0) (10, 7.0) (10, 8.0) (10, 9.0)
(20, 4.0) (20, 5.0) (20, 6.0) (20, 7.0) (20, 8.0) (20, 9.0)
(50, 4.0) (50, 5.0) (50, 6.0) (50, 7.0) (50, 8.0) (50, 9.0)
(100, 4.0) (100, 5.0) (100, 6.0) (100, 7.0) (100, 8.0) (100, 9.0)
(200, 4.0) (200, 5.0) (200, 6.0) (200, 7.0) (200, 8.0) (200, 9.0)
8.70
a.
There are a total of 2 x 4 = 8 treatments for this study. They include all combinations of Insomnia
status and Education level. The 8 treatments are:
Normal sleeper, College Graduate
Normal sleeper, Some college
Normal sleeper, High School graduate
Normal sleeper, High School Dropout
Chronic insomnia, College Graduate
Chronic insomnia, Some college
Chronic insomnia, High School graduate
Chronic insomnia, High School Dropout
b.
511
Since Insomnia and Education did not interact, this means that the effect of Insomnia on the Fatigue
Severity Scale does not depend on the level of Education. In a graph, the lines will be parallel. A
possible graph of this situation is:
Scatterplot of FSS vs Insomnia
Education
1
2
3
4
11
10
9
FSS
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Insomnia
1.8
2.0
c.
d.
This means that at least one level of education had a mean FSS score that differed from the rest.
There may be more than one difference, but there is at least one.
e.
With 95% confidence, we can conclude that the mean FSS value for high school dropouts is
significantly higher than the mean FSS values for the 3 other education levels. There is no significant
difference in the mean FSS values for college graduates, those with some college and high school
graduates.
a.
This is a complete 2 2 factorial design. The 2 factors are Color and Question.
There are two levels of color Blue and Red. There are two levels of question difficult and simple.
The 4 treatments are: blue/difficult, blue/simple, red/difficult, red/simple.
b.
There is a significant interaction between color and question. The effect of color on the mean score
is different at each level of question.
c.
Using MINITAB, the graph is:
80
Mean Score
8.71
This means that the researchers can infer that the population mean FSS for people who had insomnia
is higher than the population mean FSS for normal sleepers.
Blue
70
60
Red
50
40
Difficult
Simple
Question
Since the lines are not parallel, it indicates that there is significant interaction between color and
question.
512
8.72
Chapter 8
a.
The degrees of freedom for Type of message retrieval system is a 1 = 2 1 = 1. The degrees of
freedom for Pricing option is b 1 = 2 1 = 1. The degrees of freedom for the interaction of Type
of message retrieval system and Pricing option is (a 1)(b 1) = (2 1)(2 1) = 1. The degrees of
freedom for error is n ab = 120 2(2) = 116.
Source
Type of message retrieval system
Pricing Option
Type of system pricing option
Error
Total
b.
Df
1
1
1
116
119
SS
-
MS
-
F
2.001
5.019
4.986
To determine if Type of system and Pricing option interact to affect the mean willingness to buy,
we test:
H0: Type of system and Pricing option do not interact
Ha: Type of system and Pricing option interact
c.
MSAB
= 4.986
MSE
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 =
(a 1)(b 1) = (2 1)(2 1) = 1 and 2 = n ab = 120 2(2) = 116. From Table VIII, Appendix
B, F.05 3.92. The rejection region is F > 3.92.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate Type of system and Pricing option interact to
affect the mean willingness to buy at = .05.
d.
8.73
No. Since the test in part c indicated that interaction between Type of system and Pricing option
is present, we should not test for the main effects. Instead, we should proceed directly to a multiple
comparison procedure to compare selected treatment means. If interaction is present, it can cover up
the main effects.
a.
There are two factors for this experiment, housing system and weight class. There are a total of 4
2 = 8 treatments. The treatments are:
Cage, M
Barn, M
Cage, L
Barn, L
Free, M
Organic, M
Free, L
Organic, L
b.
513
Using SAS, the results are:
The GLM Procedure

Dependent Variable: OVERRUN
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
11364.52381
1623.50340
14.93
<.0001
Error
20
2175.33333
108.76667
Corrected Total
27
13539.85714
Source
R-Square
Coeff Var
Root MSE
OVERRUN Mean
0.839339
2.061383
10.42913
505.9286
Source
DF
Source
HOUSING
WTCLASS
HOUSING*WTCLASS
c.
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
3
1
3
10787.79048
329.14286
247.59048
3595.93016
329.14286
82.53016
33.06
3.03
0.76
<.0001
0.0973
0.5303
DF
HOUSING
WTCLASS
HOUSING*WTCLASS
Type I SS
Type III SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
3
1
3
10787.79048
320.47407
247.59048
3595.93016
320.47407
82.53016
33.06
2.95
0.76
<.0001
0.1015
0.5303
To determine if interaction between housing system and weight class exists, we test:
H0: Housing system and weight class do not interact
Ha: Housing system and weight class do interact
The test statistic is F = 0.76 and the p-value is p = .5303. Since the p-value is not less than
(p = .5303 .05), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that housing system
and weight class interact at = .05.

d.
To determine if there is a difference in mean whipping capacity among the 4 housing systems, we
test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
The test statistic is F = 33.06 and the p-value is less than .0001. Since the p-value is less than
(p < .0001 < .05), H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean
whipping capacity among the 4 housing systems at = .05.
e.
To determine if there is a difference in mean whipping capacity between the 2 weight classes, we test:
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
The test statistic is F = 2.95 and the p-value is .1015. Since the p-value is not less than (p = .1015
.05), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean whipping
capacity between the 2 weight classes at = .05.
514
8.74
Chapter 8
a.
The treatments are the 3 3 = 9 combinations of PES and Trust. The nine treatments are: (BC,
Low), (PC, Low), (NA, Low), (BC, Med), (PC, Med), (NA, Med), (BC, High), (PC, High), and (NA,
High).
b.
df(Trust) = 3 1 = 2;
SSE = SSTot SS(PES) SS(Trust) SSPT
= 161.1162 2.1774 7.6367 1.7380 = 149.5641
SS(PES)
2.1774
MS(PES) =
=
= 1.0887
2
df(PES)
SS(Trust)
7.6367
MS(Trust) =
=
= 3.81835
2
df(Trust)
SS(PT)
1.7380
MS(PT) =
=
= 0.4345
4
df(PT)
SSE
149.5641
MSE =
=
= 0.7260
df(Error)
206
MS(PES)
MS(Trust)
1.0887
3.81835
= 1.50
= 5.26
=
=
FPES =
FTrust =
0.7260
0.7260
MSE
MSE
MS(PT)
0.4345
= 0.60
=
FPT =
0.7260
MSE
The ANOVA table is:

Source
PES
Trust
PES Trust
Error
Total
c.
df
2
2
4
206
214
SS
2.1774
7.6367
1.7380
149.5641
161.1162
MS
1.0887
3.81835
0.4345
0.7260
F
1.50
5.26
0.60
To determine if PES and Trust interact, we test:

H0: PES and Trust do not interact to affect the mean tension
Ha: PES and Trust do interact to affect the mean tension

(3 1)(3 1) = 4 and 2 = n ab = 215 3(3) = 206. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.37.
The rejection region is F > 2.37.
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that PES and Trust interact at = .05.
d.
515
The plot of the treatment means is:

The mean tension scores for Low
Trust are relatively the same for each
level of PES. Similarly, the mean
tension scores for Medium Trust are
relatively the same for each level of
PES. However, the mean tension
scores for High Trust are not the same
for each level of PES. For both PES
levels BC and PC, as the level of trust
increases, the mean tension scores
decrease. However, for PES level
NA, as trust goes from low to
medium, the mean tension decreases.
As the trust goes from medium to high, the mean tension increases. This indicates that interaction is
present which was also found in part d.
e.
Yes. Using MINITAB, a plot of the data is:

Scatterplot of Time vs Density
Agent
Gum
PVP
8
7
6
M ean T ime
8.75
Because the interaction of PES and Trust was found to be significant, the tests for the main effects
are irrelevant. If the factors interact, the interaction effect can cover up any main effect differences.
In addition, interaction implies that the effects of one factor on the dependent variable are different at
different levels of the second factor. Thus, there is no one "main" effect of the factor.
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
Low
H igh
Density
Since the lines are not parallel, this indicates interaction is present. The increase in mean time when
density is increased from low to high for PVP is not as great as the increase in mean time when density is
increased from low to high for GUM.
516
8.76
Chapter 8
Using MINITAB, the ANOVA results are:
General Linear Model: Deviation versus Group, Trail
Factor
Group
Trail
Type Levels Values

fixed
4 F G M N
fixed
2 C E
Analysis of Variance for Deviatio, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source
Group
Trail
Group*Trail
Error
Total
DF
3
1
3
112
119
Seq SS
16271.2
46445.5
2245.2
82131.7
147093.6
Adj SS
13000.6
46445.5
2245.2
82131.7
Adj MS
4333.5
46445.5
748.4
733.3
F
5.91
63.34
1.02
P
0.001
0.000
0.386
First, we must test for treatment effects.

SST = SS(Group) + SS(Trail) + SS(GxT) = 16,271.2 + 46,445.5 + 2,245.2 = 64,961.9.
The df = 3 + 1 + 3 = 7.
MST
SST
64, 961.9
9, 280.2714
ab 1
4(2) 1
F=
MST 9, 280.2714
12.66
MSE
733.3
To determine if there are differences in mean ratings among the 8 treatments, we test:
H0: All treatment means are the same

Since no was given, we will use = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F
distribution with 1 = ab 1 = 4(2) 1 = 7 and 2 = n ab = 120 4(2) = 112. From Table VIII,
Appendix B, F.05 2.09. The rejection region is F > 2.09.
There is sufficient evidence that differences exist among the treatment means at = .05. Since differences
exist, we now test for the interaction effect between Trail and Group.
To determine if Trail and Group interact, we test:
H0: Trail and Group do not interact
Ha: Trail and Group do interact
The test statistic is F = 1.02 and p = .386

Since the p-value is greater than (p = .386 > .05), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence that
Trail and Group interact at = .05. Since the interaction does not exist, we test for the main effects of
Trail and Group.
To determine if there are differences in the mean rating between the two levels of
Trail, we test:
H0: 1 = 2
Ha: 1 2
517
The test statistics is F = 63.34 and p = 0.000.

Since the p-value is greater than (p = .000 < .05), H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence that the
mean trail deviations differ between the fecal extract trail and the control trail = .05.
To determine if there are differences in the mean rating between the four levels of Group, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least 2 means differ

Since the p-value is less than (p = 0.001 < .05), H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence that the mean
trail deviations differ among the four groups at = .05.
8.77
a.
Low Load, Ambiguous: Total1 n1 x1 25(18) 450

High Load, Ambiguous: Total2 n2 x2 25(6.1) 152.5
Low Load, Common: Total3 n3 x3 25(7.8) 195
High Load, Common: Total4 n4 x4 25(6.3) 157.5
(sum of all observations)2 (450 152.5 195 157.5) 2 9552
9,120.25
n
100
100
b.
CM
c.
Low Load total is 450 + 195 = 645. High Load total is 152.5 + 157.5 = 310.
a
2
i
6452 3102
9,120.25 10, 242.5 9,120.25 1,122.25

br
2(25) 2(25)
Ambiguous total is 450 + 152.5 = 602.5. Common total is 195 + 157.5 = 352.5
SS( Load )
i 1
CM
SS( Name)
B
j 1
ar
2
j
CM
a
602.52 352.52
7, 700.0625 9, 745.25 9,120.25 625

2(25)
2(25)
AB
2
ij
SS(Load Name)
i 1 j 1
SS (Load) SS(Name) CM
4502 152.52 1952 157.52
1,122.25 625 9,120.25

25
25
25
25
11, 543.5 1,122.25 625 9,120.25 676
2
(n1 1) s1 (25 1)225 5, 400
2
(n2 1) s2 (25 1)90.25 2,166
2
Low Load, Common: s3 9.52 90.25
2
(n3 1) s3 (25 1)90.25 2,166
2
High Load, Common: s4 102 100
e.
2
Low Load, Ambiguous: s1 152 225
2
High Load, Ambiguous: s2 9.52 90.25
d.
2
(n4 1) s4 (25 1)100 2, 400
2
2
2
2
SSE (n1 1) s1 (n2 1) s2 (n3 1) s3 (n4 1) s4
5, 400 2,166 2,166 2, 400 12,132
518
Chapter 8
f.
g.
SS(Total) = SS(Load) + SS(Name) + SS(Load x Name) + SSE

= 1,122.25 + 625 + 676 + 12,132 = 14,555.25
The ANOVA table is:
Source
df
Load
1
Name
1
Load x Name
1
Error
96
Total
99
SS
1,122.25
625.00
676.00
12,132.00
14,555.25
MS
1,122.25
625.00
676.00
126.375
F
8.88
4.95
5.35
h.
Yes. We computed 5.35, which is almost the same as 5.34. The difference could be due to roundoff error.
i.
To determine if interaction between Load and Name is present, we test:

H0: Load and Name do not interact
Ha: Load and Name class do interact
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 = (a 1)(b 1) =
(2 1)(2 1) = 1 and 2 = n ab = 100 4 = 96. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 3.96. The
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that Load and Name interact at = .05.
Using MINITAB, a graph of the results is:
Scatterplot of Mean vs Load
Name
1
2
17.5
Mean
15.0
12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
Low
High
Load
From the graph, the interaction is quite apparent. For Low load, the mean number of jelly beans
taken for the ambiguous name is much higher than the mean number taken for the common name.
However, for High load, there is essentially no difference in the mean number of jelly beans taken
between the two names.

j.
519
We must assume that:

1.
The response distributions for each Load-Name combination (treatment) is normal.
2.
The response variance is constant for all Load-Name combinations.
3.
Random and independent samples of experimental units are associated with each Load-Name
combination.
8.78
A one-way ANOVA has only one factor with 2 or more levels. A two-way ANOVA has 2 factors, each at
2 or more levels.
8.79
In a completely randomized design, independent random selection of treatments to be assigned to

experimental units is required. In a randomized block design, the experimental units are first grouped into
blocks such that within the blocks the experimental units are homogeneous and between the blocks the
experimental units are heterogeneous.
8.80
There are 3 2 = 6 treatments. They are A1B1, A1B2, A2B1, A2B2, A3B1, and A3B2.
8.81
When the overall level of significance of a multiple comparisons procedure is , the level of significance
for each comparison is less than .
8.82
a.
SSE = SSTot SST = 62.55 36.95 = 25.60

df Treatment = p 1 = 4 1 = 3
df Error = n p = 20 4 = 16
df Total = n 1 = 20 1 = 19
36.95
MST = SST/df =
= 12.32
3
25.60
MSE = SSE/df =
= 1.60
16
MST
12.32
F=
=
= 7.70
MSE
1.60
The ANOVA table:

Source
Treatment
Error
Total
df
3
16
19
SS
36.95
25.60
62.55
MS
12.32
1.60
7.70
520
Chapter 8
b.
To determine if there is a difference in the treatment means, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4
Ha: At least two of the means differ
where the i represents the mean for the ith treatment.

MST
= 7.70
MSE
The rejection region requires = .10 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 =
(p 1) = (4 1) = 3 and 2 = (n p) = (20 4) = 16. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 2.46. The
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that at least two of the means differ at = .10.
c.
x4 =
n4
57
= 11.4
5
For confidence level .90, = .10 and /2 = .10/2 = .05. From Table V, Appendix B, with df = 16,
t.05 = 1.746. The confidence interval is:
x4 t.05 MSE/n4 11.4 1.746
8.83
a.
1.6 / 5 11.4 .99 (10.41, 12.39)
SS(Treatment) = SS(Total) SS(Block) SSE = 22.31 10.688 - .288 = 11.334

MS(Treatment)
MS(Block)
MSE
SS(Treatment) 11.334
3.778 ,
4 1
k -1
df = k 1 = 4 1 = 3
SS(Block) 10.688
2.672 , df = b 1 = 5 1 = 4
5 1
b 1
SSE
.288
.024 , df = n k b + 1 = 20 4 5 + 1 = 12
n k b 1 20 4 5 1
Treatment F
Block F
MS(Treatment) 3.778
157.42
MSE
.024
MS(Block) 2.672
111.33
MSE
.024
521
The ANOVA Table is:

Source
Treatment
Block
Error
Total
b.
df
3
4
12
19
SS
11.334
10.688
0.288
22.310
MS
3.778
2.672
0.024
F
157.42
111.33
To determine if there is a difference among the treatment means, we test:
H0: A = B = C = D
The test statistic is F
MS(Treatment)
157.42
MSE
Since the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (F = 157.42 > 3.49),
H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference among thetreatment means at
= .05.
c.
Since there is evidence of differences among the treatment means, we need to compare the treatment
k (k 1) 4(4 1)
6.
means. The number of pairwise comparisons is
2
2
d.
To determine if there are difference among the block means, we test:
H0: All block means are the same

The test statistic is F
MS(Block)
111.33
MSE
rejected. There is sufficient evidence that the block means differ at = .05.
522
8.84
Chapter 8
a.
df(AB) = (a 1)(b - 1) = 3(5) = 15

df(Error) = n ab = 48 4(6) = 24
SSAB = MSAB(df) = 3.1(15) = 46.5
SS(Total) = SSA + SSB + SSAB + SSE = 2.6 + 9.2 + 46.5 + 18.7 = 77
SS A 2.6
SS B 9.2
MSA =
.8667
MSB =
1.84
a 1 3
b 1 5
SSE 18.7
.7792
MSE =
n ab 24
MSA .8667
MSB 1.84
FA =
1.11
FB =
2.36
MSE .7792
MSE .7792
MS AB
3.1
FAB =
3.98
MSE .7792
Source
A
B
AB
Error
Total
df
3
5
15
24
47
SS
2.6
9.2
46.5
18.7
77.0
MS
.8667
1.84
3.1
.7792
F
1.11
2.36
3.98
b.
Factor A has a = 3 + 1 = 4 levels and factor B has b = 5 + 1 = 6 levels. The number of treatments is
ab = 4(6) = 24. The total number of observations is n = 47 + 1 = 48. Thus, two replicates were
performed.
c.
SST = SSA + SSB + SSAB = 2.6 + 9.2 + 46.5 = 58.3

SST
58.3
MST 2.5347
2.5347
F=
3.25
MST =
ab 1 4(6) 1
MSE .7792

H0: 1 = 2 = = 24
Ha: At least one treatment mean is different
MST
= 3.25
MSE
1 = 23 and 2 = n ab = 48 - 4(6) = 24. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.03. The rejection
region is F > 2.03.
d.
523
Since there are differences among the treatment means, we test for the presence of interaction:
H0: Factor A and factor B do not interact to affect the response mean
Ha: Factor A and factor B do interact to affect the response mean
MS AB
= 3.98
MSE
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate factors A and B interact to affect the response means
at = .05.
Since the interaction is significant, no further tests are warranted. Multiple comparisons need to be
performed.
8.85
The data are collected as a completely randomized design because five boxes of each size were
randomly selected and tested.
b.
Yes. The confidence intervals surrounding each of the means do not overlap. This would indicate
that there is a difference in the means for the two sizes.
c.
No. Several of the confidence intervals overlap. This would indicate that the mean compression
strengths of the sizes that have intervals that overlap are not significantly different.
a..
This is a two-factor factorial design. It is also a completely randomized design.
b.
The two factors are "involvement in topic" and "question wording." Both are qualitative variables
because neither are measured on numerical scales.
c.
There are two levels of "involvement in topic": high and low. There are two levels of "question
wording": positive and negative.
d.
8.86
a.
There are 2 2 = 4 treatments. The are:

(high, positive), (high, negative), (low, positive), and (low, negative)
e.
8.87
The experiment's dependent variable is the level of agreement.
a.
The experimental design used in this example was a randomized block design.
b.
The experimental units in this problem are the electronic commerce and internet-based companies.
The response variable is the rate of return for the stock of the companies. The treatments are the 4
categories of companies: e-companies, internet software and service, internet hardware, and internet
communication. The blocks are the 3 age categories: 1 year-old, 3 year-old, and 5 year-old.
524
8.88
Chapter 8
a.
The response variable for this study is the safety rating of nuclear power plants.
b.
There are three treatments in this study. The treatment groups are the scientists, the journalists, and
the federal government policymakers.
c.
To determine whether there are differences in the attitudes of scientists, journalists, and government
officials regarding the safety of nuclear power plants, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
MST
11.28
=
= 4.79
MSE
2.355
d.
For MST = 11.280, F =
e.
and 2 = n k = 300 3 = 297. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 3.00. The rejection region is
F > 3.00.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate there are differences in the attitudes of scientists,
journalists, and government officials regarding the safety of nuclear power plants at = .05
k (k 1) 3(3 1)
= 3 pairwise comparisons.
2
2
f.
There will be c =
g.
Comparing the mean safety scores for government officials and journalists, the difference in mean
safety scores is 4.2 3.7 = .5, The critical value for the Tukey comparison is .23. Since .5 > .23, we
conclude that the mean safety score for government officials is higher than the mean safety score for
journalists.
Comparing the mean safety scores for government officials and scientists, the difference in mean
safety scores is 4.2 4.1 = .1. Since .1 < .23, we conclude that there is no difference in mean safety
scores between government officials and scientists.
Comparing the mean safety scores for scientists and journalists, the difference in mean safety scores
is 4.1 3.7 = .4, The critical value for the Tukey comparison is .23. Since .4 > .23, we conclude that
the mean safety score for scientists is higher than the mean safety score for journalists.
A display of these conclusions is:
Journalists
3.7
8.89
a.
Scientists
4.1
Gov. Officials
4.2
To determine if leadership style affects behavior of subordinates, we test:

H0: All four treatment means are the same
1 = 3 and 2 = n ab = 257 2(2) = 253. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.60. The rejection
region is F > 2.60.
525
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that leadership style affects behavior of
subordinates at = .05.
b.
From the table, the mean response for High control, low consideration is significantly higher than for
any other treatment. The mean response for Low control, low consideration is significantly higher
than that for High control, high consideration and for Low control, high consideration. No other
significant differences exist.
c.
The assumptions for Bonferroni's method are the same as those for the ANOVA. Thus, we must
assume that:
i.
ii.
iii.
The populations sampled from are normal.

The population variances are the same.
The samples are independent.
8.90
From the printout, the p-value for treatments or Decoy is p = .589. Since the p-value is not small, we
cannot reject H0. There is insufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean percentage of a goose
flock to approach to within 46 meters of the pit blind among the three decoy types. This conclusion is
valid for any reasonable value of .
8.91
a.
This is an observational experiment. The researcher recorded the number of users per
hour for each of 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, for 7 weeks. The researcher did not manipulate
the weeks or days or hours.
b.
The two factors are (1) the day of the week with 7 levels and (2) the hour of the day with 24 levels.
c.
In a factorial experiment, a is the number of levels of factor A and b is the number of levels of factor
B. If we let factor A be the day of the week and factor B be the hour of the day, then a = 7 and b = 24.
d.
To determine if the a b = 7 24 = 168 treatment means differ, we test:

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = . . . = 168
MST
1143.99
=
= 25.06
MSE
45.65
The rejection region requires = .01 in the upper tail of the F distribution with v1 = p 1 = 168 1 =
167 and v2 = n p = 1172 168 = 1004. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 1.00. The rejection
region is F > 1.00.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean usage among the day-hour
combinations at = .01.
e.
The hypotheses used to test if an interaction effect exists are:

H0: Days and hours do not interact to affect the mean usage
Ha: Days and hours interact do affect the mean usage
526
Chapter 8
MSAB 55.69
=
= 1.22
MSE
45.65
f.
g.
The p-value is p = .0527. Since the p-value is not less than = .01, H0 is not rejected. There is
insufficient evidence to indicate days and hours interact to affect usage at = .01.
To determine if the mean usage differs among the days of the week, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 = 7
MSA 3122.02
=
= 68.39
MSE
45.65
The p-value is p = .0001. Since the p-value is less than = .01, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient
evidence to indicate the mean usage differs among the days of the week at = .01.
To determine if the mean usage differs among the hours of the day, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = . . . = 24
MSB 7157.82
=
= 156.80
MSE
45.65
The p-value is p = .0001. Since the p-value is less than = .01, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient
evidence to indicate the mean usage differs among the hours of the day at = .01.
8.92
a.
b.
The response is the weight of a brochure. There is one factor and it is carton. The treatments are the
five different cartons, while the experimental units are the brochures.
y
CM =
n
SS(Total) =
SST =
.750052
= .01406437506
40
2
CM = .014066537 .01406437506 = .00000216264
Ti 2
.14767 2 .15028 2 .14962 2 .15217 2 .150312
CM =
.01406437506
ni
8
8
8
8
8
= .01406568209 - .01406437506 = .00000130703
SSE = SS(Total) SST = .00000216264 - .00000130703 = .00000085561

SST .00000130703
MST =
= .000000326756
k 1
5 1
SSE .00000085561
= .000000024446
MSE =
nk
40 5
MST .000000326756
= 13.37
F=
MSE .000000024446

Source
Treatments
Error
Total
527
SS
.00000130703
.00000085561
.00000216264
df
4
35
39
MS
.000000326756
.000000024446
F
13.37
To determine whether there are differences in mean weight per brochure among the five cartons, we
test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
and 2 = n k = 40 5 = 35. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.53. The rejection region is
F > 2.53.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean weight per brochure among the
five cartons at = .05.
c.
We must assume that the distributions of weights for the brochures in the five cartons are normal,
that the variances of the weights for the brochures in the five cartons are equal, and that random and
independent samples were selected from each of the cartons.
d.
Using MINITAB, the results of Tukeys multiple comparison procedure are:
Level
Carton1
Carton2
Carton3
Carton4
Carton5
N
8
8
8
8
8
Mean
0.018459
0.018785
0.018703
0.019021
0.018789

Pooled StDev
StDev ---+---------+---------+---------+----0.000105 (-----*-----)
0.000101
(----*-----)
0.000109
(----*-----)
0.000232
(-----*-----)
0.000188
(----*-----)
---+---------+---------+---------+-----0.01840
0.01860
0.01880
0.01900
Pooled StDev = 0.000156

Tukey 95% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals
All Pairwise Comparisons
Individual confidence level = 99.32%
Carton1 subtracted from:
Carton2
Carton3
Carton4
Carton5
Lower
0.0001013
0.0000188
0.0003375
0.0001050
Center
0.0003262
0.0002437
0.0005625
0.0003300
Upper
0.0005512
0.0004687
0.0007875
0.0005550
Carton2
Carton3
Carton4
Carton5
------+---------+---------+---------+--(-----*------)
(-----*-----)
(-----*-----)
(-----*------)
------+---------+---------+---------+---0.00035
0.00000
0.00035
0.00070
528
Chapter 8
Carton3
Carton4
Carton5
Lower
-0.0003075
0.0000113
-0.0002212
Center
-0.0000825
0.0002363
0.0000037
Upper
0.0001425
0.0004612
0.0002287
Carton3
Carton4
Carton5
------+---------+---------+---------+--(------*-----)
(------*-----)
(-----*------)
------+---------+---------+---------+---0.00035
0.00000
0.00035
0.00070

Carton4
Carton5
Lower
0.0000938
-0.0001387
Center
0.0003187
0.0000862
Upper
0.0005437
0.0003112
Carton4
Carton5
------+---------+---------+---------+--(-----*------)
(-----*------)
------+---------+---------+---------+---0.00035
0.00000
0.00035
0.00070

Carton5
Lower
-0.0004575
Center
-0.0002325
Upper
-0.0000075
Carton5
------+---------+---------+---------+--(-----*------)
------+---------+---------+---------+---0.00035
0.00000
0.00035
0.00070
The means arranged in order are:

Carton 1
.018459
Carton 3
.018703
Carton 2
.018785
Carton 5
.018789
Carton 4
.019021
The interpretation of the Tukey results are:

The mean weight for carton 4 is significantly higher than the mean weights of all the other cartons.
The mean weights of cartons 5, 4, and 3 are significantly higher than the mean weight of carton 1.
e.
8.93
Since there are differences among the cartons, management should sample from many cartons.
a.
The df for Groups = 1 = k 1 = 3 1 = 2. The df for Error = 2 = n k = 71 3 = 68.

The completed ANOVA table is:
Source
df
SS
Groups
2
128.70
Error
68
27,124.52
MS
64.35
398.89
F
0.16
b.
529
To determine if the total number of activities undertaken differed among the three groups of
entrepreneurs, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
Ha: At least one mean differs
and 2 = n k = 71 3 = 68. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 3.15. The rejection region is F >
3.15.
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the total number of activities
differed among the groups of entrepreneurs at = .05.
c.
d.
8.94
The p-value of the test is P(F > 0.16). From Table VII, Appendix B, with 1 = 2 and 2 = 68, P(F >
0.16) > .10.
No. Since our conclusion was that there was no evidence of a difference in the total number of
activities among the groups, there would be no evidence to indicate a difference between two specific
groups.
a.
This is a randomized block design.

Response:
Factor:
Factor type:
Treatments:
Experimental units:
b.
the length of time required for a cut to stop bleeding

drug
qualitative
drugs A, B, and C
subjects
Using MINITAB, the results are:

General Linear Model: Y versus Drug, Person
Factor
Drug
Person
Type Levels Values

fixed
3 A B C
fixed
5 1 2 3 4 5
Analysis of Variance for Y, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source
Drug
Person
Error
Total
DF
2
4
8
14
Seq SS
156.4
7645.8
160.1
7962.3
Adj SS
156.4
7645.8
160.1
Adj MS
78.2
1911.5
20.0
F
3.91
95.51
P
0.066
0.000
Tukey 90.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals

Response Variable Y
All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Drug
Drug = A subtracted from:
Drug
B
C
Lower
-11.56
-3.72
Center
-4.820
3.020
Upper
1.922
9.762
-----+---------+---------+---------+(-------*-------)
(--------*-------)
-----+---------+---------+---------+-8.0
0.0
8.0
16.0
530
Chapter 8
Drug = B subtracted from:
Drug
C
Lower
1.098
Center
7.840
Upper
14.58
-----+---------+---------+---------+(--------*-------)
-----+---------+---------+---------+-8.0
0.0
8.0
16.0
Let 1, 2, and 3 represent the mean clotting time for the three drugs.
H0: 1 = 2 = 3
MS(Drug)
= 3.91
MSE
The p-value is p = 0.066. Since the observed level of significance is less than
= .10, H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences in the mean clotting times
among the three drugs at = .10.
c.
The observed level of significance is given as 0.066.
d.
To determine if there is a significant difference in the mean response over blocks, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
MS(Person)
= 95.51
MSE
The p-value is p = 0.000. Since the observed level of significance is less than = .10, H0 is rejected.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences in the mean clotting times among the five people
at = .10.
e.
The confidence interval to compare drugs A and B is (-11.56, 1.922). Since 0 is in the interval, there
is no evidence of a difference in mean clotting times between drugs A and B.
The confidence interval to compare drugs A and C is (-3.72, 9.762). Since 0 is in the interval, there
is no evidence of a difference in mean clotting times between drugs A and C.
The confidence interval to compare drugs B and C is (1.098, 14.58). Since 0 is not in the interval,
there is evidence of a difference in mean clotting times between drugs B and C. Since the numbers
are positive, the mean clotting time for drug C is greater than that for drug B.
In summary, the mean clotting time for drug C is greater than that for drug B. No other differences
exist.
8.95
a.
The quality of the steel ingot.
b.
There are two factors: temperature and pressure. They are quantitative factors since they are
numerical.
c.
The treatments are the 3 5 = 15 factor-level combinations of temperature and pressure.
d.
The steel ingots are the experimental units.
a.
MSA =
SS A
243.2
=
= 243.2
1
df A
MSB =
SSB
57.8
=
= 57.8
1
df B
SSAB = SSTot- SSA SSB SSE = 976.3 243.2 57.8 670.8 = 4.5
SS AB
4.5
SSE
670.8
=
=
MSAB =
= 4.5
MSE =
= 8.712
1
77
df AB
df E
MS A
243.2
=
= 27.92
MSE
8.712
MSAB
4.5
=
= 0.52
FAB =
MSE
8.712
FA =
FB =
MSB
57.8
=
= 6.63
MSE
8.712
The ANOVA table is:

Source
Recent Performance (A)
Risk attitude(B)
AB
Error
Total
b.
df
1
1
1
77
80
SS
243.2
57.8
4.5
670.8
976.3
MS
243.2
57.8
4.5
8.712
F
27.92
6.63
0.52
To determine if factors A and B interact, we test:

H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the mean decision
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the mean decision
(2 1)(2 1) = 1 and 2 = n ab = 81 2(2) = 77. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 4.00. The
is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that factors A and B interact at = .05.
c.
Since the interaction is not significant, the main effect tests are meaningful.
To determine if an individual's risk attitude affects his or her budgetary decisions, we test:
H0: No difference exists between the risk attitude means
Ha: The risk attitude means differ
and 2 = n ab = 81 2(2) = 77. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 4.00. The rejection region is
F > 4.00.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate an individual's risk attitude affects his or her
budgetary decisions at = .05.
8.96
531
532
Chapter 8
d.
To determine if recent performance affects budgeting decisions, we test:

H0: No difference exists between the recent performance means
Ha: The recent performance means differ
The rejection region requires = .01 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = a 1 = 2 1 = 1
and 2 = n ab = 81 2(2) = 77. From Table X, Appendix B, F.01 7.08. The rejection region is
F > 7.08.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that recent performance affects his or her budgetary
decisions at = .01.
8.97
a.
A completely randomized design was used. There are five treatments. They are the five different
educational levels.
b.
To determine if the mean concern ratings differ for at least two education levels, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
where i represents the mean concern rating of the ith education level.
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = p 1 = 5 1 = 4
and 2 = n p = 315 5 = 310. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.37. The rejection region is
F > 2.37.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the mean concern ratings among the
5 education levels at = .05.
c.
8.98
The mean concern rating for those with post-graduate education is significantly greater than the mean
concern rating for the four other education level groups. There are no other significant differences.
a.
y
CM =
n
SS(Total) =
2.952
= .435125
10
2
CM = .4705 .435125 = .035375
T12 T22
1.622 1.332
CM =
.435125 = .004205
b
b
10
10
SST .004205
= .004205, df = k 1 = 1
MST =
k 1
2 1
SST = SS(DRUG) =
533
2
B12 B2
B2
+ + 10 CM
k
k
k
2
2
2
2
2
.32 .38 .27 .36 .42 .312 .192 .192 .32 .212
=
2
.435125 = .028925
SSB .028925
MSB =
= .003214, df = b 1 = 9
b 1
10 1
SSB = SS(DOG) =
SSE = SS(Total) SST SSB = .035375 .004205 .028925 = .002245

SSE
.002245
= .0002494
n k b 1 20 2 10 1
MSE =
F=
MST .004205
= 16.86
MSE .0002494
F=
MSB .003214
= 12.89
MSE .0002494
To determine if there is a difference in mean pressure readings for the two treatments, we test:
H0: A = B
Ha: A B
MST
= 16.86
MSE
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in mean pressure readings for the two
drugs at = .05.
b.
Since there is expected to be much variation between the dogs, we use the dogs as blocks to eliminate
this identified source of variation.
c.
Dog
Drug A
Drug B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.17
.20
.14
.18
.23
.19
.12
.10
.16
.13
.15
.18
.13
.18
.19
.12
.07
.09
.14
.08
(A B)
Differences
.02
.02
.01
.00
.04
.07
.05
.01
.02
.05
534
Chapter 8
d
nd
2
sd
.29
= .029
10
di2
nd
nd 1
(.29)2
10 .00449 = .0004989
10 1
9
.0129
2
sd .0004989 = .02234
sd =
To determine if there is a difference in mean pressure readings for the two treatments, we test:
H0: A = B
Ha: A B
The test statistic is t =
d 0
sd / nd
.029 0
.02234 / 10
= 4.105
The rejection region requires /2 = .05/2 = .025 in each tail of the t distribution with df = n 1 = 10
1 = 9. From Table V, Appendix B, t.025 = 2.262. The rejection region is t < 2.262 or t > 2.262.
Since the observed value of the test statistic falls in the rejection region (t = 4.105 > 2.262), H0 is
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate a difference in the treatment means at = .05.
d.
In part a, F = 16.86; and in part c, t = 4.105. Note that t2 = 4.1052 = 16.85 = F.

2
In part a, F.05 = 5.12; and in part c, t.025 = 2.262. Note that t.025 = 2.2622 = 5.12 = F.05.
e.
p-value = P(F 16.86) with 1 = 1 and 2 = 9.

Using Table X, Appendix B, P(F 10.56) < .01.
Thus, the p-value is < .01.
The probability of a test statistic this extreme if the treatment means are the same is less than .01.
This is very significant. We would reject H0 in favor of Ha if is larger than the p-value.
8.99
a.
A 6 5 factorial design was used for this experiment. There are 6 cylinders and 5 batches.
b.
The two factors are cylinders with 6 levels and batches with 5 levels.
c.
There are a total of a b = 6 5 = 30 treatments.
d.
= 1 + 1 + 2 + . . . + 2 = 145
x
CM =
i
(145) 2
= 233.61111
90
SS(Batch) =
2
i
br
CM =
535
12 2 24 2 57 2 24 2 28 2
233.61111
6(3) 6(3) 6(3) 6(3) 6(3)
= 296.05556 233.61111 = 62.44445
SS(Cyl) =
2
i
CM =
br
46 2 14 2 312 14 2 14 2 26 2
233.61111
5(3) 5(3) 5(3) 5(3) 5(3) 5(3)
= 289.4 233.61111 = 55.78889
AB
SS(B C) =
2
ij
SS(Batch) SS(Cyl) CM
4 2 12 3 2
62
62.44445 55.78889 233.61111

3
3 3
3
=
SSTot =
1201
62.44445 55.78889 233.61111 = 48.48888
3
2
ij
CM = 513 233.61111 = 279.38889
SSE = SSTot SS(Batch) SS(Cyl) - SS(B C)

= 279.38889 62.44445 55.78889 48.48888 = 112.66667
MS(Batch) = = 15.6111
MS(Cyl) =
SS(Cyl) 55.78889
= 11.1578
b 1
6 1
MS(B C) =
MSE =
FB =
SS( B x C )
48.48888
= 2.4244
(a 1)(b 1) (5 1)(6 1)
SSE 112.66667
= 1.8778
n ab 90 5(6)
MS(Batch) 15.6111
=
= 8.31
MSE
1.8778
F B C =
FC =
MS(Cyl) 11.1578
=
= 5.94
MSE
1.8778
MS( B C ) 2.4244
=
= 1.29
MSE
1.8778
536
Chapter 8
The ANOVA Table is:

Source
Batch
Cyl
BC
Error
Total
df
4
5
20
60
89
SS
62.444
55.789
48.489
112.667
279.389
MS
F__
15.611
8.31
11.158
5.94
2.424
1.29
1.878_________
SST = SS(Batch) + SS(Cyl) + SS(B C) = 62.44444 + 55.788889 + 48.48888

= 166.72221
MST =
SST 166.72221
= 5.749
ab 1
5(6) 1
FT =
MST
= 3.06
MSE

H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = . . . = 30
The test statistic is FT = 3.06.
Since no is given, we will use = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the
F distribution with 1 = ab 1 = 5(6) 1 = 29 and 2 = n ab = 90 5(6) = 60. From Table VIII,
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the treatment means at
= .05.
e.
If batch and cylinder interact to affect the mean weight, this means that the effect of batch on mean
weight depends on the level of cylinder. Batch 1 may have the highest mean weight on cylinder 2,
but Batch 4 may have the highest mean weight on cylinder 6.
f.
To determine if Batch and Cylinder interact to affect mean weight, we test:

H0: Batch and Cylinder do not interact
Ha: Batch and Cylinder interact
MS( B C )
= 1.29
MSE
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 =
(a 1)(b 1) = (5 1)(6 1) = 20 and 2 = n ab = 90 5(6) = 60. From Table VIII, Appendix B,
H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate Batch and Cylinder interact to affect the
mean weight at = .05.
g.
537
Since we did not find any evidence of interaction in part f, we will test for the main effects.
To determine if the mean weights differ among the batches, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5
The test statistic is FB = 8.31.
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F distribution with 1 = a 1 = 5 1 = 4
and 2 = n ab = 90 5(6) = 60. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 2.53. The rejection region is
F > 2.53.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the batches at = .05.
To determine if the mean weights differ among the cylinders, we test:
H0: 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6
The test statistic is FC = 5.94.
and 2 = n ab = 90 5(6) = 60. From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.37. The rejection region is
F > 2.37.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate differences exist among the cylinders at = .05.
8.100
a.
There are a total of a b = 3 3 = 9 treatments in this study.
b.
Using MINITAB, the ANOVA results are:

General Linear Model: Y versus Display, Price
Factor
Display
Price
Type Levels Values

fixed
3 1 2 3
fixed
3 1 2 3
Analysis of Variance for Y, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source
Display
Price
Display*Price
Error
Total
DF
2
2
4
18
26
Seq SS
1691393
3089054
510705
8905
5300057
Adj SS
1691393
3089054
510705
8905
Adj MS
F
845696 1709.37
1544527 3121.89
127676 258.07
495
P
0.000
0.000
0.000
To get the SS for Treatments, we must add the SS for Display, SS for Price, and the SS for Interaction.
Thus, SST = 1,691,393 + 3,089,054 + 510,705 = 5,291,152. The df = 2 + 2 + 4 = 8.
MST
SST
5, 291,152
661, 394
ab 1
3(3) 1
F=
MST 661, 394
1336.15
MSE
495
538
Chapter 8

H0: 1 = 2 = = 9
MST
= 1336.15
MSE
ab 1 = 3(3) 1 = 8 and 2 = n ab = 27 3(3) = 18. From Table VII, Appendix B, F.10 = 2.04.
The rejection region is F > 2.04.
c.
Since there are differences among the treatment means, we next test for the presence of interaction.
H0: Factors A and B do not interact to affect the response means
Ha: Factors A and B do interact to affect the response means
MSAB
= 258.07
MSE
(a 1)(b 1) = (3 1)(3 1) = 4 and 2 = n ab = 17 3(3) = 18. From Table VII, Appendix B,
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate the two factors interact at = .10.
d.
e.
The nine treatment means need to be compared.
f.
8.101
The main effect tests are not warranted since interaction is present in part c.
From the graph, if the like letters are connected, the lines are not parallel. This implies interaction is
present. This agrees with the results of part c.
a.
This is a 2 2 factorial experiment.
b.
The two factors are the tent type (treated or untreated) and location (inside or outside). There are 2
2 = 4 treatments. The four treatments are (treated, inside), (treated, outside), (untreated, inside), and
(untreated, outside).
c.
The response variable is the number of mosquito bites received in a 20 minute interval.
d.
There is sufficient evidence to indicate interaction is present. This indicates that the effect of the tent
type on the number of mosquito bites depends on whether the person is inside or outside.
8.102
539
a.
This is a completely randomized design with a complete four-factor factorial design.
b.
There are a total of 2 2 2 2 = 16 treatments.
c.
Using SAS, the output is:

Analysis of Variance Procedure
Dependent Variable: Y
Source
DF
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F Value
Pr > F
Model
15
546745.50
36449.70
5.11
0.0012
Error
16
114062.00
7128.88
Corrected Total
31
660807.50
R-Square
C.V.
Root MSE
Y Mean
0.827390
41.46478
84.433
203.63
DF
Anova SS
Mean Square
F Value
Pr > F
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
56784.50
21218.00
55444.50
165025.13
44253.13
142311.13
54946.13
378.13
1540.13
946.13
528.13
1682.00
512.00
72.00
1104.50
56784.50
21218.00
55444.50
165025.13
44253.13
142311.13
54946.13
378.13
1540.13
946.13
528.13
1682.00
512.00
72.00
1104.50
7.97
2.98
7.78
23.15
6.21
19.96
7.71
0.05
0.22
0.13
0.07
0.24
0.07
0.01
0.15
0.0123
0.1037
0.0131
0.0002
0.0241
0.0004
0.0135
0.8208
0.6483
0.7204
0.7890
0.6337
0.7921
0.9212
0.6991
Source
SPEED
FEED
SPEED*FEED
COLLET
SPEED*COLLET
FEED*COLLET
SPEED*FEED*COLLET
WEAR
SPEED*WEAR
FEED*WEAR
SPEED*FEED*WEAR
COLLET*WEAR
SPEED*COLLET*WEAR
FEED*COLLET*WEAR
SPEE*FEED*COLLE*WEAR
d.
To determine if the interaction terms are significant, we must add together the sum of squares for all
interaction terms as well as the degrees of freedom.
SS(Interaction) = 55,444.50 + 44,253.13 + 142,311.13 + 54,946.13 + 1,540.13 + 946.13
+ 528.13 + 1,682.00 + 512.00 + 72.00 + 1,104.50
= 303,339.78
df(Interaction) = 11
SS(Interacton)
303, 339.78
= 27,576.34364
=
MS(Interaction) =
11
df(Interaction)
MS(Interaction)
27, 576.34364
F(Interaction) =
= 3.87
=
7128.88
MSE
540
Chapter 8
To determine if interaction effects are present, we test:

H0: No interaction effects exist
Ha: Interaction effects exist
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = 11 and 2 = 16.
From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 2.49. The rejection region is F > 2.49.
rejected. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that interaction effects exist at = .05.
Since the sums of squares for a balanced factorial design are independent of each other, we can look
at the SAS output to determine which of the interaction effects are significant. The three-way
interaction between speed, feed, and collet is significant (p = .0135). There are three two-way
interactions with p-values less than .05. However, all of these two-way interaction terms are
imbedded in the significant three-way interaction term.
e.
Yes. Since the significant interaction terms do not include wear, it would be necessary to perform
the main effect test for wear. All other main effects are contained in a significant interaction term.
To determine if the mean finish measurements differ for the different levels of wear, we test:
H0: The mean finish measurements for the two levels of wear are the same
Ha: The mean finish measurements for the two levels of wear are different
The test statistic is t = 0.05.
The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of the F-distribution with 1 = 1 and 2 = 16.
From Table VIII, Appendix B, F.05 = 4.49. The rejection region is F > 4.49.
is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence to indicate that the mean finish measurements differ for
the different levels of wear at = .05.
f.
We must assume that:

i.
ii.
iii.
The populations sampled from are normal.

The population variances are the same.
The samples are random and independent.
8.103
541
Using MINITAB, the ANOVA Table is:

General Linear Model: Rating versus Prep, Standing
Factor
Prep
Standing
Type Levels Values

fixed
2 PRACTICE REVIEW
fixed
3 HI LOW MED
Analysis of Variance for Rating, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source
Prep
Standing
Prep*Standing
Error
Total
DF
1
2
2
126
131
Seq SS
54.735
16.500
13.470
478.955
563.659
Adj SS
54.735
16.500
13.470
478.955
Adj MS
54.735
8.250
6.735
3.801
F
14.40
2.17
1.77
P
0.000
0.118
0.174
Tukey 95.0% Simultaneous Confidence Intervals

Response Variable Rating
All Pairwise Comparisons among Levels of Prep
Prep = PRACTICE subtracted from:
Prep
REVIEW
Lower
-1.960
Center
-1.288
Upper
-0.6162
---+---------+---------+---------+--(-----------*----------)
---+---------+---------+---------+---1.80
-1.20
-0.60
0.00
First, we must test for treatment effects.

SST = SS(Prep) + SS(Stand) + SS(PxS) = 54.735 + 16.500 + 13.470 = 84.705.
The df = 1 + 2 + 2 = 5.
MST
SST
84.705
16.941
ab 1 2(3) 1
MST 16.941
4.46
MSE 3.801
To determine if there are differences in mean ratings among the 6 treatments, we test:
H0: All treatment means are the same
Since no was given, we will use = .05. The rejection region requires = .05 in the upper tail of
the F distribution with 1 = ab 1 = 2(3) 1 = 5 and 2 = n ab = 132 2(3) = 126. From Table VIII,
rejected. There is sufficient evidence that differences exist among the treatment means at = .05.
Since differences exist, we now test for the interaction effect between Preparation and Class
Standing.
To determine if Preparation and Class Standing interact, we test:
H0: Preparation and Class Standing do not interact
Ha: Preparation and Class Standing do interact
The test statistic is F = 1.77 and p = .174
542
Chapter 8
Since the p-value is greater than (p = .174 > .05), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence
that Preparation and Class Standing interact at = .05. Since the interaction does not exist, we test
for the main effects of Preparation and Class standing.
To determine if there are differences in the mean rating between the three levels of
Class standing, we test:
H0: L = M = H
Ha: At least 2 means differ
Since the p-value is greater than (p = .118 > .05), H0 is not rejected. There is insufficient evidence
that the mean ratings differ among the 3 levels of Class Standing at = .05.
To determine if there are differences in the mean rating between the two levels of Preparation, we
test:
H0: P = S
Ha: P S
Since the p-value is less than (p = 0.000 < .05), H0 is rejected. There is sufficient evidence that the
mean ratings differ between the two levels of preparation at = .05.
There are only 2 levels of Preparation. The mean rating for Practice is higher than the mean rating
Review.

Design of Experiments and Analysis of Variance

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Design of Experiments and Analysis of Variance

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 8