On Saturday, July 12, 2003, at 07:40 AM, Peter Dalgaard BSA wrote:
factor, and no, you should not expect otherwise. The various SS in the full analysis are distance measures in 24-dim space, whereas in the aggregated analysis you get a distance in 12-space. The relation is that every value entering in the b and s:b terms will be duplicated in the former, hence the SS is twice as big.
This is standard procedure, and R does the same as e.g. Genstat in this respect. It is also necessary to ensure that the residual MS are comparable, e.g. that you can test for a significant s:b random effect by comparing with the residual MS to that of the s:a:b stratum.
OK, perhaps I need a little help then. Suppose I do an interaction plot of a*b and I want to see what it looks like with 95%CI error bars. Following Loftus & Masson (1995) there would be one of two ways. I could generate an error bar for the main effect I was interested in and stress in the description that the error bars only apply across that main effect. I take it from what you have said that I would collapse the data in order to generate a proper error bar for only one effect. Or, I could generate one from a weighted average of the MSE from a, b, and a:b. The question I have is, would I get each of the main effects in that from separate analyses?
BTW, Statview seems to generate the same MSE for me whether I collapse the data or not.
______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
