|
Size: 15738
Comment:
|
Size: 16148
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| When considering the relationship among three or more variables, an '''interaction''' may arise. Interactions describe a situation in which the simultaneous influence of two variables on a third is not additive. Most commonly, interactions are considered in the context of '''Multiple Regression''' analyses, but they may also be evaluated using '''Two-Way ANOVA'''. | When considering the relationship among three or more variables, an '''interaction''' may arise. Interactions describe a situation in which the simultaneous influence of two variables on a third is not additive. Most commonly, interactions are considered in the context of '''multiple regression''' analyses, but they may also be evaluated using '''two-way ANOVA'''. |
| Line 12: | Line 12: |
| To determine if prenatal exposure to cocaine alters dendritic spine density within prefrontal cortex, 20 rats were equally divided between treatment groups that were prenatally exposed to either cocaine or placebo. Further, because any effect of prenatal drug exposure might be evident at one age but not another, animals within each treatment group were studied at either 4 or 12 weeks of age. Thus, our independent variables are treatment (prenatal drug/placebo exposure)and age (lets say 4 and 12 weeks of age), and our dependent variable is spine density. The following table shows one possible outcome of such a study: | To determine if prenatal exposure to cocaine alters dendritic spine density within prefrontal cortex, 20 rats were equally divided between treatment groups that were prenatally exposed to either cocaine or placebo. Further, because any effect of prenatal drug exposure might be evident at one age but not another, animals within each treatment group were further divided intow two groups. One sub-group was studied at 4 weeks of age and the other was studied at 12 weeks of age. Thus, our independent variables are treatment (prenatal drug/placebo exposure) and age (lets say 4 and 12 weeks of age), and our dependent variable is spine density. The following table shows one possible outcome of such a study: |
| Line 29: | Line 29: |
| * H,,03,,: The two factors (treatment and age) are independent; ie., there is no interaction effect. | * H,,03,,: The two factors (treatment and age) are independent; i.e., there is no interaction effect. |
| Line 32: | Line 32: |
| A two-way ANOVA is an analysis technique that quantifies how much of the variance in a sample can be accounted for by each of two categorical variables and their interactions. | A two-way ANOVA is an analysis technique that quantifies how much of the variance in a sample can be accounted for by each of two categorical variables and their interactions. Note that different rats are used in each of the four experimental groups, so a standard two-way ANOVA should be used. If the same rats were used in each experimental condition, one would want to use a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA. |
| Line 51: | Line 51: |
| \sum_{i=1} (x_{i,g} - \overline{X}_g)^2 \] }}} where <<latex($x_{i,g}$)>> is the ''i''th measurement for group ''g'', and <<latex($\overline{X}_g$)>> is the overall group mean for group ''g''. |
SS = \sum_{i=1} (x_{i,g} - \overline{X}_g)^2 \] }}} where ''x,,i,g,,'' is the ''i''th measurement for group ''g'', and <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,g,,'' is the overall group mean for group ''g''. |
| Line 60: | Line 60: |
| {7.5, 8, 6, 7, 6.5}, <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week, control}$)>> = 7<<BR>> <<latex($SS_{4-week, control}$)>> = (7.5-7)^2^ + (8-7)^2^ + (6-7)^2^ + (7-7)^2^ + (6.5-7)^2^ = '''2.5'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
{7.5, 8, 6, 7, 6.5}, <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week, control,,'' = 7<<BR>> <<latex($SS$)>>'',,4-week, control,,'' = (7.5-7)^2^ + (8-7)^2^ + (6-7)^2^ + (7-7)^2^ + (6.5-7)^2^ = '''2.5'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
| Line 64: | Line 64: |
| {5.5, 3.5, 4.5, 6, 5}, <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week, cocaine}$)>> = 4.9<<BR>> <<latex($SS_{4-week, cocaine}$)>> = (5.5-4.9)^2^ + (3.5-4.9)^2^ + (4.5-4.9)^2^ + (6-4.9)^2^ + (5-4.9)^2^ = '''3.7'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
{5.5, 3.5, 4.5, 6, 5}, <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week, cocaine,,'' = 4.9<<BR>> <<latex($SS$)>>'',,4-week, cocaine,,'' = (5.5-4.9)^2^ + (3.5-4.9)^2^ + (4.5-4.9)^2^ + (6-4.9)^2^ + (5-4.9)^2^ = '''3.7'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
| Line 68: | Line 68: |
| {8, 10, 13, 9, 8.5}, <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week, control}$)>> = 9.7<<BR>> <<latex($SS_{12-week, control}$)>> = (8-9.7)^2^ + (10-9.7)^2^ + (13-9.7)^2^ + (9-9.7)^2^ + (8.5-9.7)^2^ = '''15.8'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
{8, 10, 13, 9, 8.5}, <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week, control,,'' = 9.7<<BR>> <<latex($SS$)>>'',,12-week, control,,'' = (8-9.7)^2^ + (10-9.7)^2^ + (13-9.7)^2^ + (9-9.7)^2^ + (8.5-9.7)^2^ = '''15.8'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
| Line 72: | Line 72: |
| {5, 4.5, 4, 6, 4}, <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week, cocaine}$)>> = 4.7<<BR>> <<latex($SS_{12-week, cocaine}$)>> = (5-4.7)^2^ + (4.5-4.7)^2^ + (4-4.7)^2^ + (6-4.7)^2^ + (4-4.7)^2^ = '''2.8'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
{5, 4.5, 4, 6, 4}, <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week, cocaine,,'' = 4.7<<BR>> <<latex($SS$)>>'',,12-week, cocaine,,'' = (5-4.7)^2^ + (4.5-4.7)^2^ + (4-4.7)^2^ + (6-4.7)^2^ + (4-4.7)^2^ = '''2.8'''<<BR>><<BR>> |
| Line 79: | Line 79: |
| n \cdot \sum_{g} (\overline{X}_{g} - \overline{X})^2 \] }}} where n is the number of subjects in each group, <<latex($\overline{X}_g$)>> is the mean for group ''g'', and <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> is the overall mean (across groups). <<latex($SS_{B}$)>> = <<latex($n$)>> [( <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week, control}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week, cocaine}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week, control}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week, cocaine}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^]<<BR>> |
SS_B = n \cdot \sum_{g} (\overline{X}_{g} - \overline{X})^2 \] }}} where ''n'' is the number of subjects in each group, <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,g,,'' is the mean for group ''g'', and <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> is the overall mean (across groups). '''''SS,,B,,''''' = ''n'' [( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week, control,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week, cocaine,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week, control,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week, cocaine,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^]<<BR>> |
| Line 93: | Line 93: |
| Now, '''Step 4''' , we'll calculate the sum-of-squares within groups (<<latex($SS_{W}$)>>). For a group ''g'', this is {{{#!latex \[ \sum_{g} SS_g |
Now, '''Step 4''' , we'll calculate the sum-of-squares within groups (''SS,,W,,''). For a group ''g'', this is {{{#!latex \[ SS_W = \sum_{g} SS_g |
| Line 103: | Line 103: |
| <<latex($SS_{W}$)>> = <<latex($SS_{4-week, control}$)>> + <<latex($SS_{4-week, cocaine}$)>> + <<latex($SS_{12-week, control}$)>> + <<latex($SS_{12-week, cocaine}$)>><<BR>> | '''''SS,,W,,''''' = ''SS,,4-week, control,,'' + ''SS,,4-week, cocaine,,'' + ''SS,,12-week, control,,'' + ''SS,,12-week, cocaine,,''<<BR>> |
| Line 107: | Line 107: |
| <<latex($df_{w}$)>> = <<latex($N - rc$)>><<BR>> | '''''df,,W,,''''' = ''N - rc''<<BR>> |
| Line 111: | Line 111: |
| <<latex($s_{W}$)>>^2^ = <<latex($SS_{W}$)>> / <<latex($df_{w}$)>><<BR>> | '''''s,,W,,^2^''''' = ''SS,,W,,'' / ''df,,W,,''<<BR>> |
| Line 115: | Line 115: |
| Note that <<latex($SS_{W}$)>> is also known as the "residual" or "error" since it quantifies the amount of variability after the condition means are taken into account. The degrees of freedom here are ''N - rc'' because there are ''N'' data points, but the number of means fit is ''r*c'', giving a total of ''N - rc'' variables that are free to vary. For '''Step 5''', we'll calculate the sum-of-squares for the rows (<<latex($SS_{R}$)>>):<<BR>> {{{#!latex \[ \sum_{r} (\overline{X}_r - \overline{X})^2 |
Note that ''SS,,W,,'' is also known as the "residual" or "error" since it quantifies the amount of variability after the condition means are taken into account. The degrees of freedom here are ''N - rc'' because there are ''N'' data points, but the number of means fit is ''r*c'', giving a total of ''N - rc'' variables that are free to vary. For '''Step 5''', we'll calculate the sum-of-squares for the rows (''SS,,R,,''):<<BR>> {{{#!latex \[ SS_R = \sum_{r} (\overline{X}_r - \overline{X})^2 |
| Line 127: | Line 127: |
| <<latex($SS_{R}$)>> = <<latex($n$)>> [( <<latex($\overline{X}_{control}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{cocaine}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^]<<BR>> | '''''SS,,R,,''''' = ''n'' [( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,control,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,cocaine,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>)^2^]<<BR>> |
| Line 141: | Line 141: |
| In '''Step 6''', we calculate the sum-of-squares for the columns (<<latex($SS_{C}$)>>):<<BR>> {{{#!latex \[ \sum_{c} (\overline{X}_c - \overline{X})^2 |
In '''Step 6''', we calculate the sum-of-squares for the columns (<<latex($SS_{c}$)>>):<<BR>> {{{#!latex \[ SS_c = \sum_{c} (\overline{X}_c - \overline{X})^2 |
| Line 152: | Line 152: |
| <<latex($SS_{C}$)>> = <<latex($n$)>> ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^]<<BR>> | '''''SS,,c,,''''' = <<latex($n$)>> ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^ + ( <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>> )^2^]<<BR>> |
| Line 181: | Line 181: |
| Now, in '''Step 8''', we'll calculate the total sum-of-squares (<<latex($SS_{T}$)>>):<<BR>> | Now, in '''Step 8''', we'll calculate the total sum-of-squares (''SS,,T,,''):<<BR>> |
| Line 205: | Line 205: |
| And, finally, at '''Step 10''', we can organize all of the above into a table, along with the appropriate '''F,,crit,,''' values (looked up in a table like [[http://www.medcalc.org/manual/f-table.php|this one]]) that we'll use for comparison and interpretation of our computations: '''F,,crit,,''' (1, 16) ,,α=0.5,, = '''4.49''' |
And, finally, at '''Step 10''', we can organize all of the above into a table, along with the appropriate '''''F,,crit,,''''' values (looked up in a table like [[http://www.medcalc.org/manual/f-table.php|this one]]) that we'll use for comparison and interpretation of our computations: '''''F,,crit,,''''' (1, 16) ,,α=0.5,, = '''4.49''' |
| Line 239: | Line 239: |
| ''q,,obt,,'' = <<latex($\overline{X}_{12-week, control}$)>> - <<latex($\overline{X}_{4-week, control}$)>> / <<latex($\sqrt{ s_{W}^2 / n}$)>><<BR>> | ''q,,obt,,'' = <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,12-week, control,,'' - <<latex($\overline{X}$)>>'',,4-week, control,,'' / <<latex($\sqrt{ s_{W}^2 / n}$)>><<BR>> |
| Line 247: | Line 247: |
| Additional group comparisons reveal that spine density is significantly greater in the control group as compared to drug-exposed animals at both 4 and 12 weeks of age. The effect of prenatal drug exposure is magnified with time due to a developmental increase in spine density that occurs only in the control group. | Additional group comparisons reveal that spine density does not change significantly with age in the cocaine-exposed group, but is significantly greater in the control group as compared to cocaine-exposed animals at both 4 and 12 weeks of age. Thus, the effect of prenatal drug exposure is magnified with time due to a developmental increase in spine density that occurs only in the control group. |
| Line 251: | Line 251: |
| * If all pairwise comparisons are truly relevant, the Tukey (-Kramer) method is often recommended.<<BR>> | * If all pairwise comparisons are truly relevant, the Tukey method is recommended.<<BR>> |
Situations with more than two variables of interest
When considering the relationship among three or more variables, an interaction may arise. Interactions describe a situation in which the simultaneous influence of two variables on a third is not additive. Most commonly, interactions are considered in the context of multiple regression analyses, but they may also be evaluated using two-way ANOVA.
An Example Problem
To determine if prenatal exposure to cocaine alters dendritic spine density within prefrontal cortex, 20 rats were equally divided between treatment groups that were prenatally exposed to either cocaine or placebo. Further, because any effect of prenatal drug exposure might be evident at one age but not another, animals within each treatment group were further divided intow two groups. One sub-group was studied at 4 weeks of age and the other was studied at 12 weeks of age. Thus, our independent variables are treatment (prenatal drug/placebo exposure) and age (lets say 4 and 12 weeks of age), and our dependent variable is spine density. The following table shows one possible outcome of such a study:
DENDRITIC SPINE DENSITY |
|||
4-Week Control |
4-Week Cocaine |
12-Week Control |
12-Week Cocaine |
7.5 |
5.5 |
8.0 |
5.0 |
8.0 |
3.5 |
10.0 |
4.5 |
6.0 |
4.5 |
13.0 |
4.0 |
7.0 |
6.0 |
9.0 |
6.0 |
6.5 |
5.0 |
8.5 |
4.0 |
There are three null hypotheses we may want to test. The first two test the effects of each independent variable (or factor) under investigation:
H01: Treatment groups have the same dendritic spine density on average.
H02: Age groups have the same dendritic spine density on average.
And the third tests for an interaction between these two factors:
H03: The two factors (treatment and age) are independent; i.e., there is no interaction effect.
Two-Way ANOVA
A two-way ANOVA is an analysis technique that quantifies how much of the variance in a sample can be accounted for by each of two categorical variables and their interactions. Note that different rats are used in each of the four experimental groups, so a standard two-way ANOVA should be used. If the same rats were used in each experimental condition, one would want to use a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.
Step 1 is to compute the group means (for each cell, row, and column):
GROUP MEANS |
|||
|
4-Week |
12-Week |
All Ages |
Control |
7 |
9.7 |
8.35 |
Cocaine |
4.9 |
4.7 |
4.8 |
All Prenatal Exposures |
5.95 |
7.2 |
6.575 |
And it's helpful to also plot the mean data. (It's easier to understand it that way!)
Step 2 is to calculate the sum of squares (SS) for each group (cell) using the following formula:
![\[
SS = \sum_{i=1} (x_{i,g} - \overline{X}_g)^2
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_f69f0fdaf675e595f329938fb5a945e50c72d93d_p1.png "\[
SS = \sum_{i=1} (x_{i,g} - \overline{X}_g)^2
\]")
where xi,g is the ith measurement for group g, and 
g is the overall group mean for group g.
For each group, this formula is implemented as follows:
4-Week Control:
{7.5, 8, 6, 7, 6.5},
4-week, control = 7
4-week, control = (7.5-7)2 + (8-7)2 + (6-7)2 + (7-7)2 + (6.5-7)2 = 2.5
4-Week Cocaine:
{5.5, 3.5, 4.5, 6, 5},
4-week, cocaine = 4.9
4-week, cocaine = (5.5-4.9)2 + (3.5-4.9)2 + (4.5-4.9)2 + (6-4.9)2 + (5-4.9)2 = 3.7
12-Week Control:
{8, 10, 13, 9, 8.5},
12-week, control = 9.7
12-week, control = (8-9.7)2 + (10-9.7)2 + (13-9.7)2 + (9-9.7)2 + (8.5-9.7)2 = 15.8
12-Week Cocaine:
{5, 4.5, 4, 6, 4},
12-week, cocaine = 4.7
12-week, cocaine = (5-4.7)2 + (4.5-4.7)2 + (4-4.7)2 + (6-4.7)2 + (4-4.7)2 = 2.8
Step 3 is to calculate the between-groups sum of squares(SSB):
![\[
SS_B = n \cdot \sum_{g} (\overline{X}_{g} - \overline{X})^2
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_fbe398bc5e0bcdd916b5a33ab0662fac1026241a_p1.png "\[
SS_B = n \cdot \sum_{g} (\overline{X}_{g} - \overline{X})^2
\]")
where n is the number of subjects in each group, g is the mean for group g, and is the overall mean (across groups).
SSB = n [(
4-week, control - )2 + ( 4-week, cocaine - )2 + ( 12-week, control - )2 + ( 12-week, cocaine - )2]
= 5 [(7 - 6.575 )2 + (4.9 - 6.575)2 + (9.7 - 6.575)2 + (4.7 - 6.575)2]
= 5 [0.180625 + 2.805625 + 9.765625 + 3.515625]
= 5 [16.2675]
= 81.3375
Now, Step 4 , we'll calculate the sum-of-squares within groups (SSW). For a group g, this is
![\[
SS_W = \sum_{g} SS_g
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_4661d70fdac9a975e5dfe848b22a69a682186df1_p1.png "\[
SS_W = \sum_{g} SS_g
\]")
So:
SSW = SS4-week, control + SS4-week, cocaine + SS12-week, control + SS12-week, cocaine
= 2.5 + 3.7 + 15.8 + 2.8
= 24.8
dfW = N - rc
= 20 - (2 * 2)
= 16
sW2 = SSW / dfW
= 24.8 / 16
= 1.55
Note that SSW is also known as the "residual" or "error" since it quantifies the amount of variability after the condition means are taken into account. The degrees of freedom here are N - rc because there are N data points, but the number of means fit is r*c, giving a total of N - rc variables that are free to vary.
For Step 5, we'll calculate the sum-of-squares for the rows (SSR):
![\[
SS_R = \sum_{r} (\overline{X}_r - \overline{X})^2
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_0a7eb7e2e5be56c4233a0661b5a1ead81a16cbbf_p1.png "\[
SS_R = \sum_{r} (\overline{X}_r - \overline{X})^2
\]")
where r ranges over rows.
SSR = n [(
control - )2 + ( cocaine - )2]
= 10 [(8.35 - 6.575)2 + (4.8 - 6.575)2]
= 10 [3.150625 + 3.150625]
= 10 [6.30125]
= 63.0125
dfR = r - 1
= 2-1
= 1
sR2 = SSR / dfR
= 63.0125 / 1
= 63.0125
In Step 6, we calculate the sum-of-squares for the columns (
):
![\[
SS_c = \sum_{c} (\overline{X}_c - \overline{X})^2
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_f6c3dc8465d80e5fbe0ef5018b5dacef5e32d0cb_p1.png "\[
SS_c = \sum_{c} (\overline{X}_c - \overline{X})^2
\]")
where c ranges over columns.
SSc =
( 4-week - )2 + ( 12-week - )2]
= 10 [(5.95 - 6.575)2 + (7.2 - 6.575)2]
= 10 [0.390625 + 0.390625]
= 10 [0.78125]
= 7.8125
dfC = c - 1
= 2-1
= 1
sC2 = SSC / dfC
= 7.8125 / 1
= 7.8125
In Step 7, calculate the sum-of-squares for the interaction (
):
SSRC = SSB - SSR - SSC
= 81.3375 - 63.0125 - 7.8125
= 10.5125
dfRC = (r - 1)(c - 1)
= (2-1)(2-1)
= 1
sRC2 = SSRC / dfRC
= 10.5125 / 1
= 10.5125
Now, in Step 8, we'll calculate the total sum-of-squares (SST):
SST = SSB + SSW + SSR + SSC + SSRC
= 81.3375 + 24.8 + 63.0125 + 7.8125 + 10.5125
= 187.475
dfT = N - 1
= 20-1
= 19
At Step 9, we calculate the F values:
FR = sR2 / sW2
= 63.0125 / 1.55
= 40.65323
FC = sC2 / sW2
= 7.8125 / 1.55
= 5.040323
FRC = sRC2 / sW2
= 10.5125 / 1.55
= 6.782258
And, finally, at Step 10, we can organize all of the above into a table, along with the appropriate Fcrit values (looked up in a table like this one) that we'll use for comparison and interpretation of our computations:
Fcrit (1, 16) α=0.5 = 4.49
ANOVA TABLE |
||||||
Source |
SS |
df |
s2 |
Fobt |
Fcrit |
p |
rows |
63.0125 |
1 |
63.0125 |
40.65323 |
4.49 |
p < 0.05 |
columns |
7.8125 |
1 |
7.8125 |
5.040323 |
4.49 |
p < 0.05 |
r * c |
10.5125 |
1 |
10.5125 |
6.782258 |
4.49 |
p < 0.05 |
within |
24.8 |
16 |
1.55 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
total |
187.475 |
19 |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
Both factors (treatment and age) are significant, as indicate by the fact that Fobt > Fcrit. Thus, we can reject all H01 and H02 and conclude that dendritic spine density is affected by prenatal cocaine exposure and age. The interaction between the two factors (r * c) is also significant. Thus, we can also reject H03 and conclude there is a significant interaction between treatment and age.
- To further interpret these results, we can plot the group means as follows:
NOTE: Remember that the statistics provided by the ANOVA quantify the effect of each factor (in this case, treatment and age). These statistics do not compare individual condition means, such as whether 4-week control differs from 12-week control. If k = the number of groups, the number of possible comparisons is k * (k-1) / 2. In the above example, we have 4 groups, so there are (4*3)/2 = 6 possible comparisons between these group means. Statistical testing of these individual comparisons requires a post-hoc analysis that corrects for experiment-wise error rate. If all possible comparisons are of interest, the Tukey's HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) Test is commonly used.
Tukey's HSD (Honestly Significant Difference) Test
Tukey's test is a single-step, multiple-comparison statistical procedure often used in conjunction with an ANOVA to test which group means are significantly different from one another. It is used in cases where group sizes are equal (the Tukey-Kramer procedure is used if group sizes are unequal) and it compares all possible pairs of means. Note that the Tukey's test formula is very similar to that of the t-test, except that it corrects for experiment-wise error rate. (When there are multiple comparisons being made, the probability of making a type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis) increases, so Tukey's test corrects for this.) The formula for a Tukey's test is:
![\[
q_{obt} = (Y_{A} - Y_{B}) / \sqrt{ s_{W}^2 / n}
\]](/StatsWiki/MoreThanTwoVariables?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=latex_51b588f7c3115f85a29b1bd8bc32f7b8a737fe15_p1.png "\[
q_{obt} = (Y_{A} - Y_{B}) / \sqrt{ s_{W}^2 / n}
\]")
where YA is the larger of the two means being compared, YB is the smaller,sW2 is the mean squared error within, and n is the number of data points within each group . Once computed, the qobt value is compared to a q-value from the q distribution. If the qobt value is larger than the qcrit value from the distribution, the two means are significantly different.
So, if we wanted to use a Tukey's test to determine whether 4-week control significantly differs from 12-week control, we'd calculate it as follows
qobt =
12-week, control - 4-week, control / 
= 9.7 - 7 /
= 9.7 - 7 /
= 2.7 / 0.5567764
= 4.849343
The qcrit value may be looked up in a chart (like this one) using the appropriate values for k (which represents the number of group means, so 4 here) and dfw (16). So here, qcrit (4, 16) α=0.5= 4.05. Since qobt > qcrit (4.85 > 4.05), we can conclude that the two means are, in fact, (honestly) significantly different.
Additional group comparisons reveal that spine density does not change significantly with age in the cocaine-exposed group, but is significantly greater in the control group as compared to cocaine-exposed animals at both 4 and 12 weeks of age. Thus, the effect of prenatal drug exposure is magnified with time due to a developmental increase in spine density that occurs only in the control group.
IMPORTANT NOTE: There are various post-hoc tests that can be used, and the choice of which method to apply is a controversial area in statistics. The different tests vary in how conservative they are: more conservative tests are less powerful and have a lower risk of a type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis), however this comes at the cost of increasing the risk of a type II error (incorrectly accepting the null hypothesis). Some common methods, listed in order of decreasing power, are: Fisher’s LSD, Newman-Keuls, Tukey HSD, Bonferonni, Scheffé. The following provides some guidelines for choosing an appropriate post-hoc procedure.
If all pairwise comparisons are truly relevant, the Tukey method is recommended.
If it is most reasonable to compare all groups against a single control, then the Dunnett test is recommended.
If only a subset of the pairwise comparisons are relevant, then the Bonferroni method is often utilized for those selected comparisons. For example, in the present example one would likely not be interested in comparing the 4-week control to the 12-week cocaine group, or the 12-week control to the 4-week cocaine group.
Multiple Regression
Another analysis technique you could use is a multiple regression. In multiple regression, we find coefficients for each group such that we are able to best predict the group means. The multiple regression computes standard errors on the coefficients, meaning that we can determine if a coefficient is significantly different from zero. On this simple example, multiple regression will give identical answers to ANOVA, but in more complex cases, multiple regression is a more powerful technique that allows you to include additional nuisance predictors, that the analysis controls for before testing for significance of your independent variables.