Factorial ANOVA

Lecture 9
Vincent Chap 11

Research Designs

classification by the number of factors x levels

Factor x
Level

Example

2X1

Change in BP before and after medication

2 Factors: 1) Drug-pre ; 2) Drug-post
1 Level: one group of people pre- and post- medication use

3X1

Comparison of 6mo weight loss with 3 different diets.

3 Factors: 1) diet A, 2) diet B, 3) diet C
1 Level: 3 groups of people drawn from the same population

2X2

Effect of a performance supplement and gender on strength training

2 Factor: 1) Strength-w/ supplement; 2) Strength-w/o supplement
2 Levels: 1) Males, 2) Females

3X2

Effect of training intensity on 100m run time in males and females

3 Factors: 1) low-intensity, 2) medium-intensity, 3) high-intensity
2 Levels: 1) Males, 2) Females

Research Designs
cont.

AKA

Description

Example

Between-between

2 (or more) between

subject factors

Weight lost in one group of

individuals after diet A versus
another group on diet B.

Within-within

2 (or more) within subject

factors

Weight lost in individuals before

and after a diet

Between-within

1 (or more) between and

1 (or more) within subject
factor

Weight lost in males and females

before and after a diet

Interaction
Interaction is the combined effects of the factors on
the dependent variable.
Two factors interact when the differences between the
means on one factor depend upon the level of the
other factor.
Example:

If training programs affect men and women differently

then training programs interact with gender.
If training programs affect men and women the same they
do not interact.

*** See example 1 in spreadsheet

Visual Assessment
Is there an effect of
factor A?
Is there an effect of
factor B?
Is there an
interaction effect?

Examples from Literature

No Interactions (Parallel Slopes)

The red lines
represent the
average
scores for
BOTH A1 & A2
at each level
of B.
The red lines
are graphing
B Main
Effects.

No Interaction
Red line is the
Average A1
mean (averaged
across all levels
of B).
Blue line is the
average A2
mean.
Main effect for A
compares the
red and blue
mean values.

Significant Interaction
Groups A1 and
A2 are NOT
EQUALLY
affected by the
levels of B.

Significant Interaction
Groups A1 and
A2 are NOT
EQUALLY
affected by the
levels of B.

Strong Interaction
Groups A1 and A2
are NOT EQUALLY
affected by the
levels of B.
A1 goes DOWN
A2 goes UP
Draw in the
means for A1 and
A2?
Draw in means for
B1, B2, B3.

Significant Interaction
Groups A1 and A2
are NOT EQUALLY
affected by the
levels of B.
Draw in the means
for A1 and A2.
Draw in means for
B1, B2, B3.

Factorial ANOVA Assumptions

Between-Between designs have the same assumptions as one-way
ANOVA.
Dependent Variable is interval or ratio.
The variables are normally distributed
The groups have equal variances (for between-subjects factors)
The groups are randomly assigned.

Between-Within are similar to Repeated measures ANOVA (in chapter

10), but now sphericity must be applied to the pooled data (across
groups) and the individual group, this is referred to as multisample
sphericity or circularity.
Sphericity: requires equal differences between within subjects means. In
other words the changes between each time point must be equal.
We will not cover this in todays lecture.

Example: A 3x2 Between-between

Factorial ANOVA
Research Question: What are the effects of practice (1, 3, 5 days/wk) and
experience (athlete, non-athlete) on throwing accuracy?
Experimental Design: 18 subjects (n = 9 athletes, and n = 9 non-athletes)
were randomly assigned to 1 of three the practice groups (1, 3, 5 days/wk).
Statistical Approach: A 3 x 2 Factorial ANOVA with two between subjects
factors practice (1, 3, 5 days/wk) and experience (athlete, non-athlete) will
be used to test the effects of practice and experience on throwing
accuracy.
** spreadsheet example 2 for data and statistical analysis

Effect of experience and practice on

throwing accuracy

Throwing Accuracy

10.00

A1

8.00

A2
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

B1

B2

Practice Schedule

B3

Main Effects Testing:

FA: Main effect of Experience F(df = 1,12) = 8.52, p = .013
FB: Main effect of Practice F(df = 2,12) = 29.35, p = .000
FAB: Interaction F(df = 2,12) = 3.44, p = .066 is N.S. = 0.05, however, the
book calls this significant for illustration of post hoc testing.

The Interaction term

1. If the interaction is NOT SIGNIFICANT, analysis stops
after the assessment of the main effects
2. If the interaction IS SIGNIFICANT, you can also do
simple effects testing.
Using simple ANOVA, you can:
1. Simple Effects (A)
1.
2.
3.

F across A at B1 =
F across A at B2 =
F across A at B3 =

2. Simple Effects (B)

1.
2.

0.5, N.S.
2.4, N.S
13.47, p = 0.022

F across B at A1 = 18.81, p = 0.03, HSD* = 3.34, p < 0.05; 4.87, p < 0.01
F across B at A2 = 10.86, p = 0.01, HSD* = 2.21, p < 0.05; 3.22, p < 0.01

EXAMPLE in SPSS
See example in Excel worksheet.
Input data on Monthly Income
Subject

Gender

Jobcat

Monthly

1900

1800

3199

1998

2180

1829

3299

2879

4500

10

3720

11

4211

Note that the categorical variables are represented

by numeric values instead of strings. These values
can be labeled in Variable View.
Analysis > General Linear Model > Univariate

 In the pop-up menu, move monthly to the dependent

variable box and gender and jobcat to the Fixed Factors
box.
Click Plot to include a graph in the output

 Click Options to enable post-hoc analysis of main effects

Check Compare main effects then move the factors and
factor interaction to the box to Display Means.

Check Descriptive
Statistics,
Estimates of Effect
Size, and
Homogeneity test
to include in
output.
Click Continue and
then OK to
generate output.

Plot and Descriptive Stats

Output of Omnibus Test

Significance values indicate that there is a

significant main effect in job category, but not in
gender nor in the interaction between job category
and gender.

Main Effect:
Job Category
There is a significant
difference in monthly
incomes of all paired
comparisons

Main Effect: Gender

This was already
deemed insignificant in
the omnibus test, but
we will look at it just for
practice.

The example does not justify post-hoc analysis

of the interaction effect, however in the case
that it is needed, a pairwise comparison of the
interaction effect can be enabled.
HOW TO:
Adjust the syntax to enable pairwise
comparison of the interaction effect
Select Paste to view the syntax editor
In the syntax editor, change the interaction line
(Line 9):

/EMMEANS=TABLES(gender*jobcat)
should be

/EMMEANS=TABLES(gender*jobcat)
COMPARE(gender)
Click the green triangle to update the output.

Post-hoc analysis of Interaction Effect