Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

2.

FACTORIAL DESIGNS

2.1 History

Factorial designs were used in the 19th century by John Bennet Lawes and Joseph Henry
Gilbert of the Rothamsted Experimental Station

Ronald Fisher argued in 1926 that "complex" designs (such as factorial designs) were
more efficient than studying one factor at a time.[2]

Fisher thought that a factorial design allows the effect of several factors and even
interactions between them to be determined with the same number of trials as are
necessary to determine any one of the effects by itself with the same degree of accuracy.

The term "factorial" may not have been used in print before 1935, when Fisher used it in
his book The Design of Experiments.

2.2 Definition

In statistics, a full factorial experiment is an experiment whose design consists of two or


more factors, each with discrete possible values or "levels", and whose experimental units
take on all possible combinations of these levels across all such factors as shown if
Figure 1.1. A full factorial design may also be called a fully crossed design. Such an
experiment allows the investigator to study the effect of each factor on the response
variable, as well as the effects of interactions between factors on the response variable.

Afactor is a major independent variable. In this example we have two factors: time in
instruction and setting

A level is a subdivision of a factor. In this example, time in instruction has two levels and
setting has two levels.
For the vast majority of factorial experiments, each factor has only two levels. For
example, with two factors each taking two levels, a factorial experiment would have four
treatment combinations in total, and is usually called a 22 factorial design.

If the number of combinations in a full factorial design is too high to be logistically


feasible, a fractional factorial design may be done, in which some of the possible
combinations (usually at least half) are omitted.

Fig.2.1

Probably the easiest way to begin understanding factorial designs is by looking at an


example. Let's imagine a design where we have an educational program where we would
like to look at a variety of program variations to see which works best. For instance, we
would like to vary the amount of time the children receive instruction with one group
getting 1 hour of instruction per week and another getting 4 hours per week. And, we'd
like to vary the setting with one group getting the instruction in-class (probably pulled off
into a corner of the classroom) and the other group being pulled-out of the classroom for
instruction in another room.

Let's begin by doing some defining of terms. In factorial designs, a factor is a major
independent variable. In this example we have two factors: time in instruction and
setting. A level is a subdivision of a factor. In this example, time in instruction has two
levels and setting has two levels. Sometimes we depict a factorial design with a
numbering notation. In this example, we can say that we have a 2 x 2 (spoken "two-by-
two) factorial design. In this notation, the number of numbers tells you how many factors
there are and the number values tell you how many levels. If I said I had a 3 x 4 factorial
design, you would know that I had 2 factors and that one factor had 3 levels while the
other had 4. Order of the numbers makes no difference and we could just as easily term
this a 4 x 3 factorial design. The number of different treatment groups that we have in any
factorial design can easily be determined by multiplying through the number notation.
For instance, in our example we have 2 x 2 = 4 groups. In our notational example, we
would need 3 x 4 = 12 groups.

We can also depict a factorial design in design notation. Because of the treatment level
combinations, it is useful to use subscripts on the treatment (X) symbol. We can see in the
figure that there are four groups, one for each combination of levels of factors. It is also
immediately apparent that the groups were randomly assigned and that this is a posttest-
only design.

Now, let's look at a variety of different results we might get from this simple 2 x 2
factorial design. Each of the following figures describes a different possible outcome.
And each outcome is shown in table form (the 2 x 2 table with the row and column
averages) and in graphic form (with each factor taking a turn on the horizontal axis). You
should convince yourself that the information in the tables agrees with the information in
both of the graphs. You should also convince yourself that the pair of graphs in each
figure show the exact same information graphed in two different ways. The lines that are
shown in the graphs are technically not necessary -- they are used as a visual aid to
enable you to easily track where the averages for a single level go across levels of another
factor. Keep in mind that the values shown in the tables and graphs are group averages on
the outcome variable of interest. In this example, the outcome might be a test of
achievement in the subject being taught. We will assume that scores on this test range
from 1 to 10 with higher values indicating greater achievement. You should study
carefully the outcomes in each figure in order to understand the differences between these
cases.
2.3 The advantage of Factorial Design

A two-way design enables us to examine the joint (or interaction) effect of the
independent variables on the dependent variable. An interactionmeans that the
effect of one independent variable has on a dependent variable is not the same for
all levels of the other independent variable. We cannot get this information by
running separate one-way analyses.

Factorial Designs are widely used in experiments involving several factors.

There are several special cases of the general factorial design that are important
because they are widely used, and form the basis of other designs of considerable
practical value.

Factorial design can lead to more powerful test by reducing the error (within cell)
variance. This point will appear clearly when will compare the result of one-way
analyses with the results of a twoway analyses or t-tests.

With factorial designs, we don't have to compromise when answering these


questions. We can have it both ways if we cross each of our two times in
instruction conditions with each of our two settings.

2.4 The Main Effects

A main effect is an outcome that is a consistent difference between levels of a factor. For
instance, we would say theres a main effect for setting if we find a statistical difference
between the averages for the in-class and pull-out groups, at all levels of time in
instruction. The first figure depicts a main effect of time. For all settings, the 4 hour/week
condition worked better than the 1 hour/week one. It is also possible to have a main effect
for setting (and none for time).
Fig. 2.2 b Main effect on setting
Fig. 2.2 a Main effect on time

In the second main effect graph we see that in-class training was better than pull-out
training for all amounts of time.

Fig. 2.3 Main effect on time and setting


Finally, it is possible to have a main effect on both variables simultaneously as depicted
in the third main effect figure. In this instance 4 hours/week always works better than 1
hour/week and in-class setting always works better than pull-out.

2.5 Interaction Effects

Fig. 2.4 Interaction effect

If we could only look at main effects, factorial designs would be useful. But, because of
the way we combine levels in factorial designs, they also enable us to examine the
interaction effects that exist between factors. An interaction effect exists when differences
on one factor depend on the level you are on another factor. It's important to recognize
that an interaction is between factors, not levels. We wouldn't say there's an interaction
between 4 hours/week and in-class treatment. Instead, we would say that there's an
interaction between time and setting, and then we would go on to describe the specific
levels involved.

How do you know if there is an interaction in a factorial design? There are three ways
you can determine there's an interaction. First, when you run the statistical analysis, the
statistical table will report on all main effects and interactions. Second, you know there's
an interaction when can't talk about effect on one factor without mentioning the other
factor. if you can say at the end of our study that time in instruction makes a difference,
then you know that you have a main effect and not an interaction (because you did not
have to mention the setting factor when describing the results for time). On the other
hand, when you have an interaction it is impossible to describe your results accurately
without mentioning both factors. Finally, you can always spot an interaction in the graphs
of group means -- whenever there are lines that are not parallel there is an interaction
present! If you check out the main effect graphs above, you will notice that all of the lines
within a graph are parallel. In contrast, for all of the interaction graphs, you will see that
the lines are not parallel.

Fig. 2.5 Interaction effects

In the first interaction effect graph, we see that one combination of levels -- 4 hours/week
and in-class setting -- does better than the other three. In the second interaction we have a
more complex "cross-over" interaction. Here, at 1 hour/week the pull-out group does
better than the in-class group while at 4 hours/week the reverse is true. Furthermore, the
both of these combinations of levels do equally well.
2.6 Summary

Factorial design has several important features. First, it has great flexibility for exploring
or enhancing the signal (treatment) in our studies. Whenever we are interested in
examining treatment variations, factorial designs should be strong candidates as the
designs of choice. Second, factorial designs are efficient. Instead of conducting a series of
independent studies we are effectively able to combine these studies into one. Finally,
factorial designs are the only effective way to examine interaction effects.

So far, we have only looked at a very simple 2 x 2 factorial design structure. You may
want to look at some factorial design variations to get a deeper understanding of how
they work. You may also want to examine how we approach

2.7 Calculations

A two-factor factorial design is an experimental design in which data is collected for all
possible combinations of the levels of the two factors of interest.

If equal sample sizes are taken for each of the possible factor combinations then the
design is a balanced two-factor factorial design.

A balanced ab factorial design is a factorial design for which there are a levels of
factor A, b levels of factor B, and n independent replications taken at each of the ab
treatment combinations. The design size is N = abn.

The eect of a factor is dened to be the average change in the response associated with
a change in the level of the factor. This is usually called a main eect.

If the average change in response across the levels of one factor are not the same at all
levels of the other factor, then we say there is an interaction between the factors
Table 2.1 calculations

Where nij is the number of observations in cell (i,j).

EXAMPLE: (A 22 balanced design): A virologist is interested in studying the Eectsof


a = 2 dierent culture media (M) and b = 2 dierent times (T) on the growth of a
particular virus.

She performs a balanced design with n = 6 replicates for each of the 4 M T treatment
combinations. The N = 24 measurements were taken in a completely randomized order.
The results:

Table 2.2
The eect of changing T from 12 to 18 hours on the response depends on the level of
M

For medium 1, the T eect = 37.1623.3 =13.86

For medium 2, the T eect = 32 26 =6

The eect on the response of changing M from medium 1 to 2 depends on the level of
T.

For T = 12 hours, the M eect = 2623.3 =2.7

For T = 18 hours, the M eect = 3237.16 =-5.16

If either of these pairs of estimated eects are signicantly dierent then we say there
exists a signicant interaction between factors M and T.

For the 22 design example:

If 13.83 is signicantly dierent than 6 for the M eects, then we have a


signicant M T interaction. Or,

If 2.6 is signicantly dierent than 5.16 for the T eects, then we have a
signicant M T interaction.

There are two ways of dening an interaction between two factors A and B:

If the average change in response between the levels of factor A is not the same
at all levels of factor B, then an interaction exists between factors A and B.

The lack of additivity of factors A and B, or the nonparallelism of the mean


proles of A and B, is called the interaction of A and B.

When we assume there is no interaction between A and B, we say the eects are
additive.

An interaction plot or treatment means plot is a graphical tool for checking for potential
interactions between two factors. To make an interaction plot,

1. Calculate the cell means for all ab combinations of the levels of A and B.

2. Plot the cell means against the levels of factor A.

3. Connect and label means the same levels of factor B.


The roles of A and B can be reversed to make a second interaction plot

Interpretation of the interaction plot: Parallel lines usually indicate no signicant


interaction.

Severe lack of parallelism usually indicates a signicant interaction. Moderate


lack of parallelism suggests a possible signicant interaction may exist.

Statistical signicance of an interaction eect depends on the magnitude of the MSE:


For smal values of the MSE, even small interaction eects (less non parallelism) may be
signicant .

When an AB interaction is large, the corresponding main eects A and B may have
little practical meaning. Knowledge of the AB interaction is often more useful than
knowledge of the main eect

. We usually say that a signicant interaction can mask the interpretation of signicant
main eects. That is, the experimenter must examine the levels of one factor, say A, at
xed levels of the other factor to draw conclusions about the main eect of A

It is possible to have a signicant interaction between two factors, while the main
eects for both factors are not signicant.

This would happen when the interaction plot shows interactions in dierent directions
that balance out over one or both factors (such as an X pattern). This type of interaction,
however, is uncommon
2.8 The Interaction Model

The interaction model for a two-factor completely randomized design is: yijk2 = (2)

where

is the baseline mean, i is the ith factor A eect,

j is the jth factor B eect, ()ij is the (i,j)th AB interaction eect. ijk is the random
error of the kth observation from the (i,j)th cell

We assume ijk IID N(0,2). For now, we will also assume all eects are xed. If
()ij is removed from (22), we would have the additive model:

yijk = + i + j +ijk
Equation 2.1
If we impose the constraints

Equation 2.2
then the least squares estimates of the model parameters are

= j = i =

ij=

If we substitute these estimates into (22) we get

yijk = + i + j + c ij + ijk
Equation 2.3
= y + (yiy) + (yjy) + (yijyiyj + y) + ijk

where ijk is the kth residual from the treatment (i,j)th cell, and ijk =

For the 22 design

y = 29.625 y1 = 24.6 y2 = 34.586 y1 = 30.25 y2 = 29.00

2.9 Statistical Analysis of the Fixed-Effects Mode

= the AB interaction sum of squares (df = (a1)(b1)


Fig. 2.6 Statistical Analysis of the Fixed-Effects Mode
Balanced Two-Factor Factorial ANOVA Table

Table 2.3

2.10 Factorial Design Variations

Here, we'll look at a number of different factorial designs. We'll begin with a two-factor
design where one of the factors has more than two levels. Then we'll introduce the three-
factor design. Finally, we'll present the idea of the incomplete factorial design.

A 2x3 Example
Fig. 2.7 2x3 Example main effect of setting

For these examples, let's construct an example where we wish to study of the effect of
different treatment combinations for cocaine abuse. Here, the dependent measure is
severity of illness rating done by the treatment staff. The outcome ranges from 1 to 10
where higher scores indicate more severe illness: in this case, more severe cocaine
addiction. Furthermore, assume that the levels of treatment are:

Factor 1: Treatment

o psychotherapy

o behavior modification

Factor 2: Setting

o inpatient

o day treatment

o outpatient
Fig. 2.8 main effect of treatment

Note that the setting factor in this example has three levels.

The first figure shows what an effect for setting outcome might look like. You have to be
very careful in interpreting these results because higher scores mean the patient is doing
worse. It's clear that inpatient treatment works best, day treatment is next best, and
outpatient treatment is worst of the three. It's also clear that there is no difference between
the two treatment levels (psychotherapy and behavior modification). Even though both
graphs in the figure depict the exact same data, I think it's easier to see the main effect for
setting in the graph on the lower left where setting is depicted with different lines on the
graph rather than at different points along the horizontal axis.

The second figures shows a main effect for treatment with psychotherapy performing
better (remember the direction of the outcome variable) in all settings than behavior
modification. The effect is clearer in the graph on the lower right where treatment levels
are used for the lines. Note that in both this and the previous figure the lines in all graphs
are parallel indicating that there are no interaction effects.

Now, let's look at a few of the possible interaction effects. In the first case, we see that
day treatment is never the best condition. Furthermore, we see that psychotherapy works
best with inpatient care and behavior modification works best with outpatient care.

The other interaction effect example is a bit more complicated. Although there may be
some main effects mixed in with the interaction, what's important here is that there is a
unique combination of levels of factors that stands out as superior: psychotherapy done in
the inpatient setting. Once we identify a "best" combination like this, it is almost
irrelevant what is going on with main effects.
2.11 Incomplete
Factorial Design

Fig. 2.9 Incomplete Factorial Design

It's clear that factorial designs can become cumbersome and have too many groups even
with only a few factors. In much research, you won't be interested in a fully-crossed
factorial design like the ones we've been showing that pair every combination of levels
of factors. Some of the combinations may not make sense from a policy or administrative
perspective, or you simply may not have enough funds to implement all combinations. In
this case, you may decide to implement an incomplete factorial design. In this variation,
some of the cells are intentionally left empty -- you don't assign people to get those
combinations of factors.

One of the most common uses of incomplete factorial design is to allow for a control or
placebo group that receives no treatment. In this case, it is actually impossible to
implement a group that simultaneously has several levels of treatment factors and
receives no treatment at all. So, we consider the control group to be its own cell in an
incomplete factorial rubric (as shown in the figure). This allows us to conduct both
relative and absolute treatment comparisons within a single study and to get a fairly
precise look at different treatment combinations
2.12 Blocking in Factorial design

BLOCKING IN A FACTORIAL DESIGN

We have discussed factorial designs in the context of a completely randomizes


experiment. Sometimes it is not feasible or practical to completely randomize all of the
runs in a factorial. Forexample

The presence of a nuisance factor may require that the experiment be run in blocks. We
discussed the basic concept of Blocking in the context of a single-factor experiment in
Chapter 4 We now show how blocking can be incorporated in a factorial.

Consider a factorial experiment with two factors (A and 8) and replicates The linear
statistical model for this design as

Equation 2.4

where , . and () , represent the effects of facter A. B. ad the respectively. Now


suppose that to run this experiment a particular raw material is required.

This raw material is available in batches that are not Large enough to allow all ahn
treatment combinations to he run from the same batch. However

. if a hatch contains enough material for observations .

Then an alternative design is to run each of the n replicates using a separate batch of raw
material.

Consequently. the batches of raw Material represent a randomization restriction of a


block.

and a single replicate of a complete factorial experiment is tun within each block. The
effects model for this new design is

Equation 2.5

where k is the effect of the kth block. Of course, within a block the order in which the
treatment combinations are run is completely randomized. The model (Equation 5-37)
assumes that interaction between blocks and treatments is negligible. This was assumed
previously in the analysis of randomized block designs. If these interactions do exist, they
cannot be separated from the error component. In fact, the error term in this model really
consists of the (1-6),k, ([36)A, and (703),;k interactions. The analysis of variance is
outlined in Table 5-18 on page 208. The layout closely resembles that of a factorial
design, with the error sum of squares reduced by the sum of squares for blocks.
Computationally, we find the sum of squares for blocks as the sum of squares between
the n block totals { y..k }. In the previous example, the randomization was restricted to
within a batch of raw material. In practice, a variety of phenomena may cause
randomization restrictions, such as time, operators, and so on. For example, if we could
not run the entire factorial experiment on one day, then the experimenter could run a
complete replicate on day 1, a second replicate on day 2, and so on. Consequently, each
day would be a block.

Table 2.3 ANOVA for a two factor factorial randomized complete block

experiment is designed using three levels of ground clutter and two filter types. We will
consider these as fixed type factors. The experiment is performed by randomly selecting a
treatment combination (ground clutter level and filter type) and then introducing a signal
representing the target into the scope. The intensity of this target is increased until the
operator observes it. The intensity level at detection is then measured as the response
variable. Because of operator availability, it is convenient to select an operator and keep
him or her at the scope until all the necessary runs have been made. Furthermore, op-
erators differ in their skill and ability to use the scope. Consequently, it seems logical to
use the operators as blocks. Four operators are randomly selected. Once an operator is
chosen, the order in which the six treatment combinations are run is randomly deter-
mined. Thus, we have a 3 X 2 factorial experiment run in a randomized complete block.
The data are shown in Table 5-19. The linear model for this experiment is

Equation 2.6

where Ti represents the ground clutter effect, j represents the filter type effect, ()ij is
the interaction, k is the block effect, and ijk is the NID(0, 2) error component. The
sums of squares for ground clutter, filter type, and their interaction are computed in the
usual

2.13 Fractional Factorial Designs


The learning objectives for this lesson include:
Understanding the application of Fractional Factorial designs, one of the most
important designs for screening

Becoming familiar with the terms design generator, alias structure and
design resolution

Knowing how to analyze fractional factorial designs in which there arent


normally enough degrees of freedom for error

Becoming familiar with the concept of foldover either on all factors or on a


single factor and application of each case

Being introduced to Plackett-Burman Designs as another class of major


screening designs

Introduction to Fractional Factorial Designs


What we did in the last chapter is consider just one replicate of a full factorial design and
run it in blocks. The treatment combinations in each block of a full factorial can be
thought of as a fraction of the full factorial.

In setting up the blocks within the experiment we have been picking the effects we know
would be confounded and then using these to determine the layout of the blocks.

We begin with a simple example.

In an example where we have k = 3 treatments factors with 23 = 8 runs, we select 2p = 2


blocks, and use the 3-way interaction ABC to confound with blocks and to generate the
following design.

Table 2.4 sign table for three factor

Tr A B C A A B AB I
t B C C C
(1) - - - + + + -
a + - - - - + +
b - + - - + - +
ab + + - + - - -
c - - + + - - +
ac + - + - + - -
bc - + + - - + -
ab + + + + + + +
c
Here are the two blocks that result using the ABC as the generator:

Table 2.5

Block 1 2
ABC - +
(1) a
ab b
ac c
bc abc

A fractional factorial design is useful when we can't afford even one full replicate of the
full factorial design. In a typical situation our total number of runs is N = 2k-p, which is a
fraction of the total number of treatments.

Using our example above, where k = 3, p = 1, therefore, N = 22 = 4

So, in this case, either one of these blocks above is a one half fraction of a 23 design. Just
as in the block designs where we had AB confounded with blocks - where we were not
able to say anything about AB. Now, where ABC is confounded in the fractional factorial
we can not say anything about the ABC interaction.

Let's take a look at the first block which is a half fraction of the full design. ABC is the
generator of the 1/2 fraction of the 23 design. Now, take just the fraction of the full design
where ABC = -1 and we place it within its own table:

Table 2.6
trt A B C A A B AB I
B C C C
(1 - - - + + + - +
)
ab + + - + - - - +

ac + - + - + - - +

bc - + + - - + - +

Notice the contrast defining the main effects (similar colors) - there is an aliasing of these
effects. Notice that columns with the same color are just -1 times one another.
In this half fraction of the design we have 4 observations, therefore we have 3 degrees of
freedom to estimate. The degrees of freedom estimate the following effects: A - BC, B -
AC, and C - AB. Thus, this design is only useful if the 2-way interactions are not
important, since the effects we can estimate are the combined effect of main effects and
2-way interactions.

This is referred to as a Resolution III Design. It is called a Resolution III Design because
the generator ABC has three letters, but the properties of this design and all Resolution III
designs are such that the main effects are confounded with 2-way interactions.
2.14 Notation
Fractional designs are expressed using the notation lk p, where l is the number of levels
of each factor investigated, k is the number of factors investigated, and p describes the
size of the fraction of the full factorial used. Formally, p is the number of generators,
assignments as to which effects or interactions are confounded, i.e., cannot be estimated
independently of each other (see below). A design with p such generators is a 1/(lp)
fraction of the full factorial design.

For example, a 25 2 design is 1/4 of a two level, five factor factorial design. Rather than
the 32 runs that would be required for the full 25 factorial experiment, this experiment
requires only eight runs.

In practice, one rarely encounters l> 2 levels in fractional factorial designs, since
response surface methodology is a much more experimentally efficient way to determine
the relationship between the experimental response and factors at multiple levels. In
addition, the methodology to generate such designs for more than two levels is much
more cumbersome.

The levels of a factor are commonly coded as +1 for the higher level, and 1 for the
lower level. For a three-level factor, the intermediate value is coded as 0.

To save space, the points in a two-level factorial experiment are often abbreviated with
strings of plus and minus signs. The strings have as many symbols as factors, and their
values dictate the level of each factor: conventionally, for the first (or low) level, and
for the second (or high) level. The points in this experiment can thus be represented as
, , , and .

The factorial points can also be abbreviated by (1), a, b, and ab, where the presence of a
letter indicates that the specified factor is at its high (or second) level and the absence of a
letter indicates that the specified factor is at its low (or first) level (for example, "a"
indicates that factor A is on its high setting, while all other factors are at their low (or
first) setting). (1) is used to indicate that all factors are at their lowest (or first) values.
2.15 Generation
In practice, experimenters typically rely on statistical reference books to supply the
"standard" fractional factorial designs, consisting of the principal fraction. The principal
fraction is the set of treatment combinations for which the generators evaluate to + under
the treatment combination algebra. However, in some situations, experimenters may take
it upon themselves to generate their own fractional design.

A fractional factorial experiment is generated from a full factorial experiment by


choosing an alias structure. The alias structure determines which effects are confounded
with each other. For example, the five factor 25 2 can be generated by using a full three
factor factorial experiment involving three factors (say A, B, and C) and then choosing to
confound the two remaining factors D and E with interactions generated by D = A*B and
E = A*C. These two expressions are called the generators of the design. So for example,
when the experiment is run and the experimenter estimates the effects for factor D, what
is really being estimated is a combination of the main effect of D and the two-factor
interaction involving A and B.

An important characteristic of a fractional design is the defining relation, which gives the
set of interaction columns equal in the design matrix to a column of plus signs, denoted
by I. For the above example, since D = AB and E = AC, then ABD and ACE are both
columns of plus signs, and consequently so is BDCE. In this case the defining relation of
the fractional design is I = ABD = ACE = BCDE. The defining relation allows the alias
pattern of the design to be determined.

Table 2.7 Treatment combinations for a 25 2 design

Treatment combinations for a 25 2 design


Treatment combination I A B C D= E=
AB AC
de + + +
a + +
be + + +
abd + + + +
cd + + +
ace + + + +
bc + + +
abcde + + + + + +
2.16 Resolution
An important property of a fractional design is its resolution or ability to separate main
effects and low-order interactions from one another. Formally, the resolution of the
design is the minimum word length in the defining relation excluding (1). The most
important fractional designs are those of resolution III, IV, and V: Resolutions below III
are not useful and resolutions above V are wasteful in that the expanded experimentation
has no practical benefit in most casesthe bulk of the additional effort goes into the
estimation of very high-order interactions which rarely occur in practice. The 25 2 design
above is resolution III since its defining relation is I = ABD = ACE = BCDE.

Table 2.8 resolution table


Resolutio Ability Example
n
I Not useful: an experiment of exactly one run only 21 1 with defining
tests one level of a factor and hence can't even relation I = A
distinguish between the high and low levels of that
factor
II Not useful: main effects are confounded with other 22 1 with defining
main effects relation I = AB
III Estimate main effects, but these may be 23 1 with defining
confounded with two-factor interactions relation I = ABC
IV Estimate main effects uncompounded by two- 24 1 with defining
factor interactions relation I = ABCD
Estimate two-factor interaction effects, but
these may be confounded with other two-
factor interactions
V Estimate main effects uncompounded by 25 1 with defining
three-factor (or less) interactions relation
Estimate two-factor interaction effects I = ABCDE
uncompounded by two-factor interactions
Estimate three-factor interaction effects, but
these may be confounded with other two-
factor interactions
VI Estimate main effects unconfounded by four- 26 1 with defining
factor (or less) interactions relation
Estimate two-factor interaction effects I = ABCDEF
unconfounded by three-factor (or less)
interactions
Estimate three-factor interaction effects, but
these may be confounded with other three-
factor interactions
The resolution described is only used for regular designs. Regular designs have run size
that equal a power of two, and only full aliasing is present. Nonregular designs are
designs where run size is a multiple of 4; these designs introduce partial aliasing, and
generalized resolution is used as design criteria instead of the resolution described
previously.