Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
-I sums of squares usually test hypotheses of interest
only by
> accident.
>
> (3) Type-II sums of squares are constructed obeying the principle of
> marginality, so the kinds of contrasts employed to represent factors
are
> irrelevant to the sums of squares produced. You get the same answer
for any
> full set of contrasts for each factor. In general, the hypotheses
tested
> assume that terms to which a particular term is marginal are zero.
So, for
> example, in a three-way ANOVA with factors A, B, and C, the Type-II
test for
> the AB interaction assumes that the ABC interaction is absent, and
the test
> for the A main effect assumes that the ABC, AB, and AC interaction
are
> absent (but not necessarily the BC interaction, since the A main
effect is
> not marginal to this term). A general justification is that we're
usually
> not interested, e.g., in a main effect that's marginal to a nonzero
> interaction.
>
> (4) Type-III tests do not assume that terms higher-order to the term
in
> question are zero. For example, in a two-way design with factors A
and B,
> the type-III test for the A main effect tests whether the population
> marginal means at the levels of A (i.e., averaged across the levels
of B)
> are the same. One can test this hypothesis whether or not A and B
interact,
> since the marginal means can be formed whether or not the profiles of
means
> for A within levels of B are parallel. Whether the hypothesis is of
interest
> in the presence of interaction is another matter, however. To
compute
> Type-III tests using incremental F-tests, one needs contrasts that
are
> orthogonal in the row-basis of the model matrix. In R, this means,
e.g.,
> using contr.sum, contr.helmert, or contr.poly (all of which will give
you
> the same SS), but not contr.treatment. Failing to be careful here
will
> result in testing hypotheses that are not reasonably construed, e.g.,
as
> hypotheses concerning main effects.
>
> (5) The same considerations apply to linear models that include
quantitative
> predictors -- e.g., ANCOVA. Most software will not automatically
produce
> sensible Type-III tests, however.
>
> I hope this helps,
> John
>
>
> John Fox
> Department of Sociology
> McMaster University
> Hamilton, Ontario
> Canada L8S 4M4
> 905-525-9140x23604
> http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amasco
> > Miralisus
> > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:07 PM
> > To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch
> > Subject: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car
package)
> >
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R
> > particularly.
> > I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated
> > if you answer it in a simple way.
> >
> > 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova()
> > function for lm() or aov() models in R implements Type I sum
> > of squares (sequential), which is not well suited for
> > unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use
> > Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by
> > John Fox to use Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I
> > get the point?
> >
> > 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not
> > well suited for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in
> > STATISTICA help), therefore the general rule of thumb is to
> > use Anova() function using Type II SS only for balanced ANOVA
> > and Anova() function using Type III SS for unbalanced ANOVA?
> > Is this correct interpretation?
> >
> > 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that
> > Type III SS could be misleading in case someone use some
> > contrasts. What is this about?
> > Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type
> > II and when Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for
> > comparisons, just general ANOVA with subsequent Tukey
> > post-hoc comparisons.
> >
> > Thank you in advance,
> > Amasco
> >
> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> > __
> > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> > PLEASE do read the posting guide
> > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
>
>
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Confidentiality Statement:
This email message, including any attachments, is\ for the s...{{dropped}}
__
R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
I cannot resist a very brief entry into this old and seemingly immortal issue, but I will be very brief, I promise! Amasco Miralisus suggests: > As I understood form R FAQ, there is disagreement among Statisticians > which SS to use > (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-does-the-output-from-a nova_0028_0029-depend-on-the-order-of-factors-in-the-model_003f). To let this go is to concede way too much. The 'disagreement' is really over whether this is a sensible question to ask in the first place. One side of the debate suggests that the real question is what hypotheses does it make sense to test and within what outer hypotheses. Settle that question and no issue on "types" of sums of squares arises. This is often a hard question to get your head around, and the attraction of offering a variety of 'types of sums of squares' holds out the false hope that perhaps you don't need to do so. The bad news is that for good science and good decision making, you do. Bill Venables. __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
Dear Amasco, Again, I'll answer briefly (since the written source that I previously mentioned has an extensive discussion): > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amasco > Miralisus > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:21 PM > To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch > Cc: John Fox; Prof Brian Ripley; Mark Lyman > Subject: Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, > car package) > > Hello, > > First of all, I would like to thank everybody who answered my > question. Every post has added something to my knowledge of the topic. > I now know why Type III SS are so questionable. > > As I understood form R FAQ, there is disagreement among > Statisticians which SS to use > (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/FAQ/R-FAQ.html#Why-does-the-out > put-from-anova_0028_0029-depend-on-the-order-of-factors-in-the > -model_003f). > However, most commercial statistical packages use Type III as > the default (with orthogonal contrasts), just as STATISTICA, > from which I am currently trying to migrate to R. This was > probably was done for the convenience of end-users who are > not very experienced in theoretical statistics. > Note that the contrasts are only orthogonal in the row basis of the model matrix, not, with unbalanced data, in the model matrix itself. > I am aware that the same result could be produced using the standard > anova() function with Type I "sequential" SS, supplemented by > drop1() function, but this approach will look quite > complicated for persons without any substantial background in > statistics, like no-math students. I would prefer easier way, > possibly more universal, though also probably more "for > dummies" :) If am not mistaken, car package by John Fox with > his nice Anova() function is the reasonable alternative for > any, who wish to simply perform quick statistical analysis, > without afraid to mess something with model fitting. Of > course orthogonal contrasts have to be specified (for example > contr.sum) in case of Type III SS. > > Therefore, I would like to reformulate my questions, to make > it easier for you to answer: > > 1. The first question related to answer by Professor Brian > Ripley: Did I understood correctly from the advised paper > (Bill Venables' > 'exegeses' paper) that there is not much sense to test main > effects if the interaction is significant? > Many are of this opinion. I would put it a bit differently: Properly formulated, tests of main effects in the presence of interactions make sense (i.e., have a straightforward interpretation in terms of population marginal means) but probably are not of interest. > 2. If I understood the post by John Fox correctly, I could safely use > Anova(.,type="III") function from car for ANOVA analyses in > R, both for balanced and unbalanced designs? Of course > providing the model was fitted with orthogonal contrasts. > Something like below: > mod <- aov(response ~ factor1 * factor2, data=mydata, >contrasts=list(factor1=contr.sum, > factor2=contr.sum)) Anova(mod, type="III") > Yes (or you could reset the contrasts option), but why do you appear to prefer the "type-III" tests to the "type-II" tests? > It was also said in most of your posts that the decision of > which of Type of SS to use has to be done on the basis of the > hypothesis we want to test. Therefore, let's assume that I > would like to test the significance of both factors, and if > some of them significant, I plan to use post-hoc tests to > explore difference(s) between levels of this significant factor(s). > Your statement is too vague to imply what kind of tests you should use. I think that people are almost always interested in "main effects" when interactions to which they are marginal are negligible. In this situation, both "type-II" and "type-III" tests are appropriate, and "type-II" tests would usually be more powerful. Regards, John > Thank you in advance, Amasco > > On 8/27/06, John Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Amasco, > > > > A complete explanation of the issues that you raise is > awkward in an > > email, so I'll address your questions briefly. Section 8.2 > of my text, > > Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related > Methods (Sage, > > 1997) has a detailed discussion. > > > > (1) In balanced designs, so-called "Type I," "II," and > "III" sums of > > squares are identical. If the STATA manual says that Type > II tests are > > only appropriate in balan
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
i.e., averaged across the levels of B) > are the same. One can test this hypothesis whether or not A and B interact, > since the marginal means can be formed whether or not the profiles of means > for A within levels of B are parallel. Whether the hypothesis is of interest > in the presence of interaction is another matter, however. To compute > Type-III tests using incremental F-tests, one needs contrasts that are > orthogonal in the row-basis of the model matrix. In R, this means, e.g., > using contr.sum, contr.helmert, or contr.poly (all of which will give you > the same SS), but not contr.treatment. Failing to be careful here will > result in testing hypotheses that are not reasonably construed, e.g., as > hypotheses concerning main effects. > > (5) The same considerations apply to linear models that include quantitative > predictors -- e.g., ANCOVA. Most software will not automatically produce > sensible Type-III tests, however. > > I hope this helps, > John > > > John Fox > Department of Sociology > McMaster University > Hamilton, Ontario > Canada L8S 4M4 > 905-525-9140x23604 > http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amasco > > Miralisus > > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:07 PM > > To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch > > Subject: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package) > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R > > particularly. > > I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated > > if you answer it in a simple way. > > > > 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() > > function for lm() or aov() models in R implements Type I sum > > of squares (sequential), which is not well suited for > > unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use > > Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by > > John Fox to use Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I > > get the point? > > > > 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not > > well suited for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in > > STATISTICA help), therefore the general rule of thumb is to > > use Anova() function using Type II SS only for balanced ANOVA > > and Anova() function using Type III SS for unbalanced ANOVA? > > Is this correct interpretation? > > > > 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that > > Type III SS could be misleading in case someone use some > > contrasts. What is this about? > > Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type > > II and when Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for > > comparisons, just general ANOVA with subsequent Tukey > > post-hoc comparisons. > > > > Thank you in advance, > > Amasco > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > __ > > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > > PLEASE do read the posting guide > > http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
Dear Amasco, A complete explanation of the issues that you raise is awkward in an email, so I'll address your questions briefly. Section 8.2 of my text, Applied Regression Analysis, Linear Models, and Related Methods (Sage, 1997) has a detailed discussion. (1) In balanced designs, so-called "Type I," "II," and "III" sums of squares are identical. If the STATA manual says that Type II tests are only appropriate in balanced designs, then that doesn't make a whole lot of sense (unless one believes that Type-II tests are nonsense, which is not the case). (2) One should concentrate not directly on different "types" of sums of squares, but on the hypotheses to be tested. Sums of squares and F-tests should follow from the hypotheses. Type-II and Type-III tests (if the latter are properly formulated) test hypotheses that are reasonably construed as tests of main effects and interactions in unbalanced designs. In unbalanced designs, Type-I sums of squares usually test hypotheses of interest only by accident. (3) Type-II sums of squares are constructed obeying the principle of marginality, so the kinds of contrasts employed to represent factors are irrelevant to the sums of squares produced. You get the same answer for any full set of contrasts for each factor. In general, the hypotheses tested assume that terms to which a particular term is marginal are zero. So, for example, in a three-way ANOVA with factors A, B, and C, the Type-II test for the AB interaction assumes that the ABC interaction is absent, and the test for the A main effect assumes that the ABC, AB, and AC interaction are absent (but not necessarily the BC interaction, since the A main effect is not marginal to this term). A general justification is that we're usually not interested, e.g., in a main effect that's marginal to a nonzero interaction. (4) Type-III tests do not assume that terms higher-order to the term in question are zero. For example, in a two-way design with factors A and B, the type-III test for the A main effect tests whether the population marginal means at the levels of A (i.e., averaged across the levels of B) are the same. One can test this hypothesis whether or not A and B interact, since the marginal means can be formed whether or not the profiles of means for A within levels of B are parallel. Whether the hypothesis is of interest in the presence of interaction is another matter, however. To compute Type-III tests using incremental F-tests, one needs contrasts that are orthogonal in the row-basis of the model matrix. In R, this means, e.g., using contr.sum, contr.helmert, or contr.poly (all of which will give you the same SS), but not contr.treatment. Failing to be careful here will result in testing hypotheses that are not reasonably construed, e.g., as hypotheses concerning main effects. (5) The same considerations apply to linear models that include quantitative predictors -- e.g., ANCOVA. Most software will not automatically produce sensible Type-III tests, however. I hope this helps, John John Fox Department of Sociology McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario Canada L8S 4M4 905-525-9140x23604 http://socserv.mcmaster.ca/jfox > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Amasco > Miralisus > Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:07 PM > To: r-help@stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package) > > Hello everybody, > > I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R > particularly. > I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated > if you answer it in a simple way. > > 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() > function for lm() or aov() models in R implements Type I sum > of squares (sequential), which is not well suited for > unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use > Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by > John Fox to use Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I > get the point? > > 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not > well suited for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in > STATISTICA help), therefore the general rule of thumb is to > use Anova() function using Type II SS only for balanced ANOVA > and Anova() function using Type III SS for unbalanced ANOVA? > Is this correct interpretation? > > 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that > Type III SS could be misleading in case someone use some > contrasts. What is this about? > Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type > II and when Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for > comparisons, just general ANOVA with subsequent Tukey > post-hoc comparisons. > > Thank you in adv
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
I think this starts from the position of a batch-oriented package. In R you can refit models with update(), add1() and drop1(), and experienced S/R users almost never use ANOVA tables for unbalanced designs. Rather than fit a pre-specified set of sub-models, why not fit those sub-models that appear to make some sense for your problem and data? SInce your post lacks a signature and your credentials we have no idea of your background, which makes it very difficult even to know what reading to suggest to you. But Bill Venables' 'exegeses' paper (http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS3/Exegeses.pdf) may be a good start. It does explain your comment '3.'. On Sun, 27 Aug 2006, Amasco Miralisus wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R particularly. > I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated if you answer > it in a simple way. > > 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() function for lm() > or aov() models in R implements Type I sum of squares (sequential), which > is not well suited for unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use > Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by John Fox to use > Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I get the point? > > 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not well suited > for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in STATISTICA help), therefore > the general rule of thumb is to use Anova() function using Type II SS > only for balanced ANOVA and Anova() function using Type III SS for > unbalanced ANOVA? Is this correct interpretation? > > 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that Type III SS > could be misleading in case someone use some contrasts. What is this about? > Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type II and when > Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for comparisons, just general ANOVA > with subsequent Tukey post-hoc comparisons. > > Thank you in advance, > Amasco > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > __ > R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help > PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html > and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > -- Brian D. Ripley, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Professor of Applied Statistics, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/ University of Oxford, Tel: +44 1865 272861 (self) 1 South Parks Road, +44 1865 272866 (PA) Oxford OX1 3TG, UKFax: +44 1865 272595 __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
Re: [R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
> 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() function for lm() > or aov() models in R implements Type I sum of squares (sequential), which > is not well suited for unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use > Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by John Fox to use > Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I get the point? > > 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not well suited > for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in STATISTICA help), therefore > the general rule of thumb is to use Anova() function using Type II SS > only for balanced ANOVA and Anova() function using Type III SS for > unbalanced ANOVA? Is this correct interpretation? > > 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that Type III SS > could be misleading in case someone use some contrasts. What is this about? > Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type II and when > Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for comparisons, just general ANOVA > with subsequent Tukey post-hoc comparisons. There are many threads on this list that discuss this issue. Not being a great statistician myself, I would suggest you read through some of these as a start. As I understand, the best philosophy with regards to types of sums of squares is to use the type that tests the hypothesis you want. They were developed as a convenience to test many of the hypotheses a person might want "automatically," and put it into a nice, neat little table. However, with an interactive system like R it is usually even easier to test a full model vs. a reduced model. That is if I want to test the significance of an interaction, I would use anova(lm.fit2, lm.fit1) where lm.fit2 contains the interaction and lm.fit2 does not. The anova function will return the appropriate F-test. The danger with worrying about what type of sums of squares to use is that often we do not think about what hypotheses we are testing and if those hypotheses make sense in our situation. Mark Lyman __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
[R] Type II and III sum of square in Anova (R, car package)
Hello everybody, I have some questions on ANOVA in general and on ANOVA in R particularly. I am not Statistician, therefore I would be very appreciated if you answer it in a simple way. 1. First of all, more general question. Standard anova() function for lm() or aov() models in R implements Type I sum of squares (sequential), which is not well suited for unbalanced ANOVA. Therefore it is better to use Anova() function from car package, which was programmed by John Fox to use Type II and Type III sum of squares. Did I get the point? 2. Now more specific question. Type II sum of squares is not well suited for unbalanced ANOVA designs too (as stated in STATISTICA help), therefore the general rule of thumb is to use Anova() function using Type II SS only for balanced ANOVA and Anova() function using Type III SS for unbalanced ANOVA? Is this correct interpretation? 3. I have found a post from John Fox in which he wrote that Type III SS could be misleading in case someone use some contrasts. What is this about? Could you please advice, when it is appropriate to use Type II and when Type III SS? I do not use contrasts for comparisons, just general ANOVA with subsequent Tukey post-hoc comparisons. Thank you in advance, Amasco [[alternative HTML version deleted]] __ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.
