The big question with the unbalanced design is, is the apparent 
nonindependence between/among classification variables due to random loss of 
scores in some cells or due to those variables actually being related in the 
population of interest -- and, related to that, what to do about it -- the 
usual solution is just to ignore the variance that is confounded (although 
eliminating it from the error term).


Cheers,

Karl L. Wuensch


-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart McKelvie [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:46 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] SPSS Question for Statistical Tipsters

Dear Mike,

Thanks for your helpful information. I also thank Jim Clark for looking at at 
printout.

The distinction seems to hinge on whether weighting is taken into account.

Sincerely,

Stuart
_____________________________________________________
 Sent via Web Access

                                   "Floreat Labore"

                      "Recti cultus pectora roborant"

Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D.,     Phone: 819 822 9600 x 2402
Department of Psychology,         Fax: 819 822 9661
Bishop's University,
2600 rue College,
Sherbrooke,
Québec J1M 1Z7,
Canada.

E-mail: [email protected] (or [email protected])

Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page:
http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy

                                  " Floreat Labore"
_______________________________________________________

________________________________________
From: Michael Palij [[email protected]]
Sent: 14 December 2011 19:17
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Cc: Michael Palij
Subject: Re: [tips] SPSS Question for Statistical Tipsters

I have not seen an SPSS source on this point but there are a few discussions 
about it by SAS users.  One source is the following:
http://support.sas.com/onlinedoc/913/getDoc/en/statug.hlp/glm_sect34.htm

What SAS calls "LS means" or "Least Squares means" is equivalent to SPSS'
estimated marginal means (emm).  Ordinary means are referred to as "arithmetic 
means"; see the following for the distinction:
http://onbiostatistics.blogspot.com/2009/04/least-squares-means-marginal-means-vs.html

If you have a "balanced" design (e.g., a factorial design with constant N for 
each cell), then the LS/emm means will be the same as the arithmetic means.  In 
an unbalanced design, the type of sums of square calculation you use can 
produce differences between the two (e.g., Type I SS or sequential SS vs.Type 
III SS or unweighted means).
See the following for a worked example:
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~dnett/S402/wlsmeans.pdf

-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>



------------------- Original Message ------------------------ On Wed, 14 Dec 
2011 12:09:11 -0800, Jim Clark wrote:

Hi

I have not observed this problem and, as Stuart observed, generally see EMMs 
that differ from originals when covariates are involved.  One thing to check 
might be whether it occurs with unequal ns per condition / cell?  Could SPSS be 
estimating effects controlling for any confounding between factors?

If you have an example of this issue, I would be happy to see it.

Take care
Jim

>>> Stuart McKelvie <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
>>> 14-Dec-11 12:38 PM >>>
Dear Tipsters,

I have puzzled over this question for a long time.

When conducting an ANOPVA in SPSS, we have two options for obtaining means in 
each condition.


1.   Click on descriptives. This gives means, standard deviations and
sample sizes for all main effects and interactions. They appear at the 
beginning of the printout.



2.   Under options, you can specify which means you want. This gives
means and standard errors for the effects and interactions that you specify. 
They appear at the end of the printout.


My question is: Why are these means sometimes different from the ones in the 
descriptives in 1? I think I have seen the term "estimated marginal means", 
with a reference to covariates, but if there are no covariates (it is ANOVA not 
ANCOVA), I do not understand this.

I would have thought that a mean was a mean in ANOVA.

---

You are currently subscribed to tips as: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=14893

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken)

or send a blank email to 
leave-14893-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu<mailto:leave-14893-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu>






---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b3534420e&n=T&l=tips&o=14902
or send a blank email to 
leave-14902-13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b35344...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14905
or send a blank email to 
leave-14905-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Reply via email to