

One-Way Independent Samples ANOVA with PASW

Download the data file ANOVA1.sav from my PASW data page. These are
contrived data (I created them with a normal random number generator in the SAS
statistical package). We shall imagine that we are evaluating the effectiveness of a new
drug (Athenopram HBr) for the treatment of persons with depressive and anxiety
disorders. Our independent variable is the daily dose of the drug given to such persons,
and our dependent variable is a measure of these persons' psychological illness after
two months of pharmacotherapy. We have 20 scores in each of five treatment groups.
Bring the data file, ANOVA1.SAV, into PASW. To do the analysis click Analyze,
Compare Means, One-Way ANOVA. Scoot Illness into the Dependent List box and
Dose into the Factor box. Click Contrasts, check Polynomial, and select Degree = 4th.
Click Continue. Click Post Hoc, check Bonferroni and REGWQ. There are many other
pairwise procedures available here too. Click Continue. Click Options and select
Descriptive Statistics and Means Plot. Click Continue, OK.
At the bottom of the output is a plot of the means. Take a look at the plot. It
appears that the drug is quite effective with 10 and 20 mg doses, but that increasing the
dosage beyond that reduces its effectiveness (perhaps by creating problems opposite to
those it was intended to alleviate). With data like these, a “trend analysis” would be
advised. In such an analysis one attempts to describe the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables in terms of a polynomial function. If you
remember polynomials from your algebra course, you will recognize that a quadratic
function (one with one bend in the curve) would fit our data well. By selecting
polynomial contrasts we get, along with the one-way ANOVA, a test of how well a
polynomial model fits the data. I selected degree = 4th to get a test not only of a
quadratic model but also of more complex (cubic and quartic) polynomial models. The
highest degree one can select is k-1, where k is the number of levels of the independent
variable.
The descriptive statistics at the top of the output reveal considerable differences
among the group standard deviations, but Fmax (ratio of largest group variance to
smallest group variance) remains below 4, so we are OK with the homogeneity of
variance assumption.
The ANOVA clearly shows that dose is significantly related to illness (between
groups p < .001). The trend analysis shows that there is no significant linear
relationship between dose and illness (p = .147), but that higher order polynomial trends
(quadratic, cubic, and quartic) would account for a significant proportion of the variance
in illness (deviation p < .001). The quadratic trend is large (η 2 = 6100.889/14554.24 =
42%) and significant (p < .001). The "deviation" test shows us that cubic (which would
allow two bends in the curve relating dose to illness) and quartic (three bends) trends
(combined) would account for a significant additional proportion of the variance in illness
(deviation p = .047). The cubic trend is significant (p = .032), but accounts for so little of


Copyright 2010, Karl L. Wuensch - All rights reserved.
ANOVA1-SPSS.doc
 2
the variance in illness (η 2 = 389.205/14554.24 = 3%) that it is not of great importance.
The quartic (4th order) trend is trivial and not significant. Please do note that if my
independent variable were qualitative rather than continuous, then a trend
analysis would not be appropriate and I would not have asked for one – I would
still get the standard analysis.
Under the title of Post Hoc Tests, PASW reports first the results of the Bonferroni
tests. Each row in this table represents the difference between the mean illness at one
dosage and the mean illness at another dosage. The Sig. column tells you whether the
difference is significant or not and then you are given a confidence interval for the
difference. All of the differences are significant with the exception of 0 mg vs 40 mg, 10
mg vs 20 mg, and 10 mg vs 30 mg.
The results of the REGWQ test are presented in a different format. The table
under the title Homogeneous Subsets shows that the mean for 20 mg does not differ
significantly from that for 10 mg and the mean for 0 mg does not differ significantly from
that for 40 mg. Although not covered in Howell's Fundamentals textbook, the REGWQ
is my recommendation for the pairwise comparison procedure to employ in almost all
cases where you have more than three groups – but you cannot really do it by hand,
you have to use a computer. If you have only three groups, your best choice is to
use Fisher's LSD procedure. With four or more groups I strongly recommend the
REGWQ.
The overall η 2 is computed by hand by taking the among groups sums of
squares and dividing by the total sums of squares. This estimates the proportion of the
variance in the criterion variable which is “explained” by the grouping variable. You
should report both the point estimate of that proportion and also put a 95% confidence
interval about it.
Below is an example of how to write up these results. While the underlining
means method of presenting pairwise comparisons is dandy when you are writing by
hand, it is cumbersome when you are using a word processor, and you never see it in
published manuscripts. Instead, I present such results in a table, using superscripts to
indicate which means differ significantly from which other means. I chose to present the
results of the Bonferroni test rather than the REGWQ test, because the pattern of
results from the Bonferroni test are more complex and I wanted to show you how to
present such complex results.
An analysis of variance indicated that dose of Athenopram significantly affected
psychological illness of our patients, F(4, 95) = 20.78, MSE = 81.71, p < .001, η 2 = .47,
CI.95 = .30, .56. As shown in Table 1, Bonferroni tests indicated that low doses of the
drug were associated with significantly better mental health than were high doses or
placebo treatment. A trend analysis indicated that the data were well fit by a cubic
model with the quadratic component accounting for a large and significant proportion of
the variance in illness (η 2 = .42, p < .001) and the cubic trend accounting for small but
significant proportion of the variance (η 2 = .03, p = .032).
 3
Table 1
Psychological Illness of Patients
As a Function of Dose of Athenopram

Dose (mg) M SD
40 101.8A 10.66
0 100.8A 8.82
30 92.5B 7.24
10 85.0BC 11.01
20 81.1C 6.60
Note. Means with the same letter in
their superscripts do not differ
significantly from one another according
to a Bonferroni test with a .05 limit on
familywise error rate.
Please see my document Using PASW to Obtain a Confidence Interval for R2 From
Regression. Here are screen shots showing how I got the confidence interval for eta-
squared.

Copyright 2010, Karl L. Wuensch - All rights reserved.