Rich Ulrich wrote: > You are rather defeating the nature of the "repeated measures" > if you stick in some measure that is different. > Or some measure that is on a different scale. > Or some measure that has been 'normalized' > differently from the others. > > You might be able to do it, if you are simply wiping out > all the between-period differences by the normalizations; > but I'm not sure why you would do it. Do you have a > model that explains why you could have arbitrary and > different treatments of periods?
I think you'd need to model the variances and the covariances of the data in more detail - some kind of multilevel model might be suitable, though it wouldn't be straight-forward. Of course, a transformation might still be sensible if the the reason for the discrepancy in the scale of one was the high mean and/or larger range relative to the others. > And I *might* hesitate to call the resulting thing, > "repeated measures ANOVA" -- I think you have > to apply MANOVA tests, instead. I'm not sure that would solve the problem - except in as much as the sphericity asssumption might be violated in the example (which now that I think on it is probably highly likely in the example given and may be what you meant!). Thom . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
