design of experiments

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

20 Aufrufe

design of experiments

© All Rights Reserved

Als DOCX, PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- research metodology-anova
- 2wayaov
- Notes for Sociology
- Quality Assurance Project
- Barrett, Grimm, Robins, Wildschut, Sedikides Music-Evoked Nostalgia. Affect, Memory, and Personality
- 1 (73)
- Therapeutic Effects of a Cognitive-behavioural Treatment With Juvnile Offenders
- The Impact of Performance Distress on Agressive Competitive Behavior
- Interaction
- Viewer Satisfaction
- 1-s2.0-S0003999312008994-main
- Regression Analysis Webinar
- Microsoft Word Anu IEE572_Project.final Report Latest 12.9
- Product Robust Design and Process Robust Design
- International Joint Venture Partner Origin, Strategic Choice, And Performance_JIM.2009
- as02
- ANCOVA2
- BVIT
- 1-s2.0-S0306456514001788-main
- 01_Handout_1(3)

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 29

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

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.

feasible, a fractional factorial design may be done, in which some of the possible

combinations (usually at least half) are omitted.

Fig.2.1

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.

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.

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

instruction conditions with each of our two settings.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

T.

If either of these pairs of estimated eects are signicantly dierent then we say there

exists a signicant interaction between factors M and T.

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.

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.

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

interaction.

lack of parallelism suggests a possible signicant interaction may exist.

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

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=

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 =

Fig. 2.6 Statistical Analysis of the Fixed-Effects Mode

Balanced Two-Factor Factorial ANOVA Table

Table 2.3

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

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

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

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

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

material.

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

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

normally enough degrees of freedom for error

single factor and application of each case

screening 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.

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

following design.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

- research metodology-anovaHochgeladen vonsuresh270
- 2wayaovHochgeladen vonRahman Boim
- Notes for SociologyHochgeladen vonkaliegh4204
- Quality Assurance ProjectHochgeladen vonSabharish Murali
- Barrett, Grimm, Robins, Wildschut, Sedikides Music-Evoked Nostalgia. Affect, Memory, and PersonalityHochgeladen vonGirba Emilia
- 1 (73)Hochgeladen vonDanielle Dani
- Therapeutic Effects of a Cognitive-behavioural Treatment With Juvnile OffendersHochgeladen vonJuan Carlos T'ang Venturón
- The Impact of Performance Distress on Agressive Competitive BehaviorHochgeladen vonCamila Acevedo
- InteractionHochgeladen vonhubik38
- Viewer SatisfactionHochgeladen vonDedy Ngonthelagi
- 1-s2.0-S0003999312008994-mainHochgeladen vonMANISSABELLA
- Regression Analysis WebinarHochgeladen vonBethany Robinson
- Microsoft Word Anu IEE572_Project.final Report Latest 12.9Hochgeladen vonxevpix
- Product Robust Design and Process Robust DesignHochgeladen von5landers
- International Joint Venture Partner Origin, Strategic Choice, And Performance_JIM.2009Hochgeladen vonjohnalis22
- as02Hochgeladen vonLakshmi Seth
- ANCOVA2Hochgeladen vonzenflesh
- BVITHochgeladen vonlaura
- 1-s2.0-S0306456514001788-mainHochgeladen vonEonni Aeolis
- 01_Handout_1(3)Hochgeladen vonAbigail Pulla Balinas
- Minimum Wage and Immigration via Mexico and Central America.pdfHochgeladen vonAnonymous FIxzJH5N8
- Decay of Motor MemoryHochgeladen vonEri Ka
- Simple Slopes for a 2-Way Interaction 2009-08-25Hochgeladen vonpandaprasad
- Interractive Control Systems and Strategic Orientation on Competitive Position of Sugar Firms in Western KenyaHochgeladen voninventionjournals
- 950-6527-2-PBHochgeladen vonKushagradhi Debnath
- Food Chemistry Volume 232 Issue 2017 [Doi 10.1016%2Fj.foodchem.2017.04.012] Saucedo-Velez, A.a.; Hinojosa-Reyes, L.; Villanueva-Rodríguez, -- Speciation Analysis of Organoarsenic Compounds in Livestoc(1)Hochgeladen vonElis
- Determining Returns ExercisesHochgeladen vonRicarr Wee Chiong
- A short guide and a forest plot command (ipdforest) for one-stage meta-analysisHochgeladen vonadh30
- alevelh2maths2008Paper2Hochgeladen vonAmbrieshKarthik
- 2338-Article Text-4631-1-10-20150331.pdfHochgeladen voninerita womsiwor

- SplintHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Jung, Yong Gi Et Al 2011Hochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Session 12 en Logic Element-Cartridge Valve NoRestriction(1)Hochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Session11 AccumulatorsHochgeladen vonAyman Esa
- BatteriesHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- dsslecturelaminarpremixedflame-33-VVVVVVVVVVV3rd-Mech..pptHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- DoeHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- 06 Pump CurvesHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- 08 Pump Head & Power CalculationHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Taguchi Case StudyHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- 1.docxHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Factorial DesignHochgeladen vonahmed elkhouly
- Workshop Practice Series - 01 - Hardening Tempering and Heat TreatmentHochgeladen vonChad Hunter

- 2Hochgeladen vonMichael Powell
- One-Way ANOVAHochgeladen voncyn050608
- ResDesignExamHochgeladen vonMayankGirotra
- Logistic RegressionHochgeladen vonDhruv Bansal
- Encyclopedia of Research Design-Multiple RegressionHochgeladen vonscottleey
- Me Screen2Hochgeladen vonTrina Miller
- Ends + Ways + Means = (Bad) StrategyHochgeladen vonEckyThump
- Taxonomies of Learning Domains ActivitiesHochgeladen vonrususilviu
- MAX WEBER (1864–1920)Hochgeladen vonmmehmet123
- Probability vs Non probability sampling.docxHochgeladen vonKunal Kapoor
- LINIEARITY.xlsHochgeladen vonazadsingh1
- Chemical Analysis in SEM FinalHochgeladen vonmm11_ned
- 0805.4452v2.pdfHochgeladen vonVlad Preda
- DhsjsjHochgeladen vonNeheLhie
- Blacking - Some Problems of Theory and Method in the Study of Musical ChangeHochgeladen vonMiguel Almeida
- QFT Curved SpaceHochgeladen vonFabrizzio Bugini Jara
- SamplingHochgeladen vonSujoy Paul
- Slides Question Hour Assignment 2Hochgeladen vonFrida Buck
- Husserl - Philosophy as a Rigorous Science [New Translation]Hochgeladen vonPhilip Reynor Jr.
- Analisis GofHochgeladen vonKang Edi Riadi
- 1-s2.0-0167701295000852-main.pdfHochgeladen vonCésar Augusto Hernández Espitia
- MATH 1041Hochgeladen vonAlex Park
- Chapter_2Hochgeladen vonSiva Prasad Nandyala
- Resumenes LandmanHochgeladen vonJerenluis Guzman
- READ+++5 WHY_ROOT CAUSE_CORRECTIVE ACTIONSHochgeladen vonHacı Osman
- GAUSS Programming TutorialHochgeladen vonabdullah5502
- Experimental Stress Analysis Lab ReportHochgeladen vonAnthony Chow
- Case Analysis FinalHochgeladen vonCia-Anne Aromin
- Triangular DistributionHochgeladen vonafjkjchhghgfbf
- 4 1 a study guide 1Hochgeladen vonapi-263168545

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.