420 likes | 749 Views
Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance. . Multiple Comparisons. Error rate of control Pairwise comparisons Comparisons to a control Linear contrasts. Multiple Comparison Procedures.
E N D
Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance.
Multiple Comparisons Error rate of control Pairwise comparisons Comparisons to a control Linear contrasts
Multiple Comparison Procedures Once we reject H0: ==...c in favor of H1: NOT all ’s are equal, we don’t yet know the way in which they’re not all equal, but simply that they’re not all the same. If there are 4 columns, are all 4 ’s different? Are 3 the same and one different? If so, which one? etc.
These “more detailed” inquiries into the process are called MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES. Errors (Type I): We set up “” as the significance level for a hypothesis test. Suppose we test 3 independent hypotheses, each at = .05; each test has type I error (rej H0 when it’s true) of .05. However, P(at least one type I error in the 3 tests) = 1-P( accept all ) = 1 - (.95)3 .14 3, given true
In other words, Probability is .14 that at least one type one error is made. For 5 tests, prob = .23. Question - Should we choose = .05, and suffer (for 5 tests) a .23 Experimentwise Error rate (“a” or aE)? OR Should we choose/control the overall error rate, “a”, to be .05, and find the individual test by 1 - (1-)5 = .05, (which gives us = .011)?
The formula 1 - (1-)5 = .05 would be valid only if the tests are independent; often they’re not. [ e.g., 1=22=3, 1= 3 IF accepted & rejected, isn’t it more likely that rejected? ] 2 3 1 1 2 3
Error Rates When the tests are not independent, it’s usually very difficult to arrive at the correct for an individual test so that a specified value results for the experimentwise error rate (or called family error rate).
There are many multiple comparison procedures. We’ll cover only a few. Pairwise Comparisons Method 1: (Fisher Test) Do a series of pairwise t-tests, each with specified value (for individual test). This is called “Fisher’s LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE” (LSD).
Example: Broker Study A financial firm would like to determine if brokers they use to execute trades differ with respect to their ability to provide a stock purchase for the firm at a low buying price per share. To measure cost, an index, Y, is used. Y=1000(A-P)/A where P=per share price paid for the stock; A=average of high price and low price per share, for the day. “The higher Y is the better the trade is.”
CoL: broker 1 12 3 5 -1 12 5 6 2 7 17 13 11 7 17 12 3 8 1 7 4 3 7 5 4 21 10 15 12 20 6 14 5 24 13 14 18 14 19 17 } R=6 Five brokers were in the study and six trades were randomly assigned to each broker.
“MSW” = .05, FTV = 2.76 (reject equal column MEANS)
For any comparison of 2 columns, Yi -Yj /2 /2 CL 0 Cu AR: 0+ ta/2 x MSW x 1+ 1 nj ni dfw (ni = nj = 6, here) Pooled Variance, the estimate for the common variance MSW :
In our example, with=.05 0 2.060 (21.2 x 1 + 1 ) 0 5.48 6 6 This value, 5.48 is called the Least Significant Difference (LSD). When same number of data points, R, in each column, LSD = ta/2 x 2xMSW. R
Col: 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Underline Diagram • Summarize the comparison results. (p. 443) • Now, rank order and compare:
3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Step 2: identify difference > 5.48, and mark accordingly: 3: compare the pair of means within each subset: Comparisondifferencevs. LSD < < < < 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 * * * 5 * Contiguous; no need to detail
3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 18 Conclusion : 3, 1 2 4 5 ??? Conclusion : 3, 1 2, 4, 5 Can get “inconsistency”: Suppose col 5 were 18: Now: Comparison |difference| vs. LSD < < > < 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 * * * 6
Broker 1 and 3 are not significantly different but they are significantly different to the other 3 brokers. Conclusion : 3, 1 2 4 5 • Broker 2 and 4 are not significantly different, and broker 4 and 5 are not significantly different, but broker 2 is different to (smaller than) broker 5 significantly.
Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>One-Way Anova then click “comparisons”. Fisher's pairwise comparisons (Minitab) Family error rate = 0.268 Individual error rate = 0.0500 Critical value = 2.060 t_a/2 (not given in version 16.1) Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean) 1 2 3 4 2 -11.476 -0.524 3 -4.476 1.524 6.476 12.476 4 -13.476 -7.476 -14.476 -2.524 3.476 -3.524 5 -16.476 -10.476 -17.476 -8.476 -5.524 0.476 -6.524 2.476 Col 1 < Col 2 Col 2 = Col 4
Minitab Output for Broker Data • Grouping Information Using Fisher Method • broker N Mean Grouping • 5 6 17.000 A • 4 6 14.000 A • 2 6 12.000 A • 1 6 6.000 B • 3 6 5.000 B • Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
Pairwise comparisons Method 2: (Tukey Test) A procedure which controls the experimentwise error rate is “TUKEY’S HONESTLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TEST ”.
Tukey’s method works in a similar way to Fisher’s LSD, except that the “LSD” counterpart (“HSD”) is not ta/2 x MSW x 1+ 1 ni nj ) ( or, for equal number of data points/col , = ta/2 x 2xMSW R but tuk X 2xMSW , R a/2 where tuk has been computed to take into account all the inter-dependencies of the different comparisons.
HSD = tuka/2x2MSW R_______________________________________ A more general approach is to write HSD = qaxMSW Rwhere qa = tuka/2 x2 ---q = (Ylargest - Ysmallest) / MSW R ---- probability distribution of q is called the “Studentized Range Distribution”. --- q = q(c, df), where c =number of columns, and df = df of MSW
With c = 5 and df = 25,from table (or Minitab):q = 4.15tuk = 4.15/1.414 = 2.93 Then, HSD = 4.15 21.2/6 = 7.80 also, 2.93 2x21.2/6 = 7.80
In our earlier example: 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Rank order: (No differences [contiguous] > 7.80)
Comparison |difference|>or< 7.80 < < > > < > > < < < 3 vs. 1 3 vs. 2 3 vs. 4 3 vs. 5 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 4 1 vs. 5 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 (contiguous) * 7 9 12 * 8 11 * 5 * 3, 1, 2 4, 5 2 is “same as 1 and 3, but also same as 4 and 5.”
Tukey's pairwise comparisons (Minitab)Family error rate = 0.0500Individual error rate = 0.00706Critical value = 4.15 q_a (not given in version 16.1)Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean) 1 2 3 4 2 -13.801 1.801 3 -6.801 -0.801 8.801 14.801 4 -15.801 -9.801 -16.801 -0.199 5.801 -1.199 5 -18.801 -12.801 -19.801 -10.801 -3.199 2.801 -4.199 4.801 Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>One-Way Anova then click “comparisons”.
Minitab Output for Broker Data • Grouping Information Using Tukey Method • broker N Mean Grouping • 5 6 17.000 A • 4 6 14.000 A • 2 6 12.000 A B • 1 6 6.000 B • 3 6 5.000 B • Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
Special Multiple Comp. Method 3: Dunnett’s test Designed specifically for (and incorporating the interdependencies of) comparing several “treatments” to a “control.” Col Example: 1 2 3 4 5 } R=6 6 12 5 14 17 CONTROL Analog of LSD (=t/2 x 2 MSW ) D = Dut/2 x 2 MSW R R From table or Minitab
D= Dut/2 x 2 MSW/R = 2.61 (2(21.2) ) = 6.94 CONTROL 6 1 2 3 4 5 In our example: 6 12 5 14 17 Comparison |difference|>or< 6.94 < < > > 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 4 1 vs. 5 6 1 8 11 - Cols 4 and 5 differ from the control [ 1 ]. - Cols 2 and 3 are not significantly different from control.
Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>General Linear Model then click “comparisons”. Dunnett's comparisons with a control (Minitab) Family error rate = 0.0500 controlled!! Individual error rate = 0.0152 Critical value = 2.61 Dut_a/2 Control = level (1) of broker Intervals for treatment mean minus control mean Level Lower Center Upper --+---------+---------+---------+----- 2 -0.930 6.000 12.930 (---------*--------) 3 -7.930 -1.000 5.930 (---------*--------) 4 1.070 8.000 14.930 (--------*---------) 5 4.070 11.000 17.930 (---------*---------) --+---------+---------+---------+----- -7.0 0.0 7.0 14.0
What Method Should We Use? • Fisher procedure can be used only after the F-test in the Anova is significant at 5%. • Otherwise, use Tukey procedure. Note that to avoid being too conservative, the significance level of Tukey test can be set bigger (10%), especially when the number of levels is big.
Contrast Example 1 1 3 4 2 Sulfa Type S1 Sulfa Type S2 Anti-biotic Type A Placebo Suppose the questions of interest are (1) Placebo vs. Non-placebo (2) S1 vs. S2 (3) (Average) S vs. A
In general, a question of interest can be expressed by a linear combination of column means such as with restriction that Saj = 0. Such linear combinations are called contrasts.
Test if a contrast has mean 0 The sum of squares for contrast Z is where R is the number of rows (replicates). The test statistic Fcalc = SSC/MSW is distributed as F with 1 and (df of error) degrees of freedom. Reject E[C]= 0 if the observed Fcalc is too large (say, > F0.05(1,df of error) at 5% significant level).
Example 1 (cont.): aj’s for the 3 contrasts P S1 S2 A 1234 -3 1 1 1 P vs. P: C1 S1 vs. S2:C2 S vs. A: C3 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 -1 2
Calculating top row middle row bottom row
5 6 7 10 Y.1 Y.2 Y.3 Y.4 PS1 S2 A Placebo vs. drugs S1 vs. S2 Average S vs. A -3 5.33 1 1 1 0.50 0 1 -1 0 8.17 2 -1 -1 0 14.00
5.33 42.64 .50 4.00 8.17 65.36
Tests for Contrasts Source SSQ df MSQ F C1 C2 C3 42.64 4.00 65.36 8.53 .80 13.07 42.64 4.00 65.36 1 1 1 Error 140 28 5 F1-.05(1,28)=4.20
Example 1 (Cont.): Conclusions • The mean response for Placebo is significantly different to that for Non-placebo. • There is no significant difference between using Types S1 and S2. • Using Type A is significantly different to using Type S on average.