Hubbry Logo
Main effectMain effectMain
Open search
Main effect
Community hub
Main effect
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Main effect
Main effect
Main effect
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the design of experiments and analysis of variance, a main effect is the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable averaged across the levels of any other independent variables. The term is frequently used in the context of factorial designs and regression models to distinguish main effects from interaction effects.

Relative to a factorial design, under an analysis of variance, a main effect test will test the hypotheses expected such as H0, the null hypothesis. Running a hypothesis for a main effect will test whether there is evidence of an effect of different treatments. However, a main effect test is nonspecific and will not allow for a localization of specific mean pairwise comparisons (simple effects). A main effect test will merely look at whether overall there is something about a particular factor that is making a difference. In other words, it is a test examining differences amongst the levels of a single factor (averaging over the other factor and/or factors). Main effects are essentially the overall effect of a factor.

Definition

[edit]

A factor averaged over all other levels of the effects of other factors is termed as main effect (also known as marginal effect). The contrast of a factor between levels over all levels of other factors is the main effect. The difference between the marginal means of all the levels of a factor is the main effect of the response variable on that factor.[1] Main effects are the primary independent variables or factors tested in the experiment.[2] Main effect is the specific effect of a factor or independent variable regardless of other parameters in the experiment.[3] In design of experiment, it is referred to as a factor but in regression analysis it is referred to as the independent variable.

Estimating Main Effects

[edit]

In factorial designs, thus two levels each of factor A and B in a factorial design, the main effects of two factors say A and B be can be calculated. The main effect of A is given by

The main effect of B is given by

Where n is total number of replicates. We use factor level 1 to denote the low level, and level 2 to denote the high level. The letter "a" represent the factor combination of level 2 of A and level 1 of B and "b" represents the factor combination of level 1 of A and level 2 of B. "ab" is the represents both factors at level 2. Finally, 1 represents when both factors are set to level 1.[2]

Hypothesis Testing for Two Way Factorial Design.

[edit]

Consider a two-way factorial design in which factor A has 3 levels and factor B has 2 levels with only 1 replicate. There are 6 treatments with 5 degrees of freedom. in this example, we have two null hypotheses. The first for Factor A is: and the second for Factor B is: .[4] The main effect for factor A can be computed with 2 degrees of freedom. This variation is summarized by the sum of squares denoted by the term SSA. Likewise the variation from factor B can be computed as SSB with 1 degree of freedom. The expected value for the mean of the responses in column i is while the expected value for the mean of the responses in row j is where i corresponds to the level of factor in factor A and j corresponds to the level of factor in factor B. and are main effects. SSA and SSB are main-effects sums of squares. The two remaining degrees of freedom can be used to describe the variation that comes from the interaction between the two factors and can be denoted as SSAB.[4] A table can show the layout of this particular design with the main effects (where is the observation of the ith level of factor B and the jth level of factor A):

3x2 Factorial Experiment
Factor/Levels

Example

[edit]

Take a factorial design (2 levels of two factors) testing the taste ranking of fried chicken at two fast food restaurants. Let taste testers rank the chicken from 1 to 10 (best tasting), for factor X: "spiciness" and factor Y: "crispiness." Level X1 is for "not spicy" chicken and X2 is for "spicy" chicken. Level Y1 is for "not crispy" and level Y2 is for "crispy" chicken. Suppose that five people (5 replicates) tasted all four kinds of chicken and gave a ranking of 1-10 for each. The hypotheses of interest would be: Factor X is: and for Factor Y is: . The table of hypothetical results is given here:

(Replicates)
Factor Combination I II III IV V Total
Not Spicy, Not Crispy (X1,Y1) 3 2 6 1 9 21
Not Spicy, Crispy (X1, Y2) 7 2 4 2 8 23
Spicy, Not Crispy (X2, Y1) 5 5 6 1 8 25
Spicy, Crispy (X2, Y2) 9 10 8 6 8 41

The "Main Effect" of X (spiciness) when we are at Y1 (not crunchy) is given as:

where n is the number of replicates. Likewise, the "Main Effect" of X at Y2 (crunchy) is given as:

, upon which we can take the simple average of these two to determine the overall main effect of the Factor X, which results as the above

formula, written here as:

=

Likewise, for Y, the overall main effect will be:[5]

=

For the Chicken tasting experiment, we would have the resulting main effects:

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Main effect

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In statistics, particularly within the framework of analysis of variance (ANOVA), a main effect refers to the direct influence of a single independent variable on the dependent variable, calculated by averaging across the levels of any other independent variables in a experimental . This concept is fundamental to understanding how individual factors contribute to variability in outcomes, such as differences in response times or performance scores, without considering interactions between variables. Main effects are typically assessed in multi-factor experiments, like two-way or higher-order ANOVA, where each independent variable (factor) has multiple levels, and the analysis partitions the total variance into components attributable to each factor, interactions, and error. The significance of a main effect is tested using an F-statistic, which compares the mean square for the factor (MS_factor) to the mean square error (MS_error); a low p-value (e.g., < 0.05) indicates that the factor reliably affects the dependent variable, assuming the null hypothesis of equal population means across levels is false. For instance, in a study examining the impact of teacher expectations and student age on IQ scores, the main effect of teacher expectations would reveal overall differences in scores attributable to expectations alone, averaged over age groups. Interpretation of main effects must account for potential interactions, as a significant interaction between factors can qualify or alter the meaning of individual main effects; in such cases, the effect of one variable may depend on the levels of another, rendering simple main effect interpretations incomplete without further simple effects analysis. Thus, researchers often examine interaction terms first in ANOVA output to ensure accurate conclusions about main effects. This approach underscores the additive versus multiplicative nature of effects in experimental designs, promoting robust inference in fields like psychology, agriculture, and engineering.

Fundamentals

Definition

In statistical analysis, particularly in the context of analysis of variance (ANOVA), a main effect represents the independent influence of a single factor on the response variable in experimental designs, quantified as the average difference in response means across the levels of that factor, while marginalizing over (i.e., averaging across) the levels of all other factors in the design. This isolates the overall contribution of the factor, assuming no interactions unless separately assessed. Unlike marginal effects in regression models or observational studies—which typically denote the average change in the response for a unit increment in a predictor while holding other covariates fixed—main effects in ANOVA pertain specifically to categorical factors in controlled experiments and emphasize balanced averaging across combinations of factors rather than conditional holding. The concept of main effects emerged from Ronald A. Fisher's pioneering work on ANOVA and factorial designs for agricultural experiments at Rothamsted Experimental Station in the 1920s, where he formalized the decomposition of variance into components attributable to individual factors. In basic notation, for a factor AA with aa levels (i=1i = 1 to aa), the main effect at level ii is expressed as αi=yˉi..−yˉ...\alpha_i = \bar{y}_{i..} - \bar{y}_{...}, the deviation of the marginal mean for level ii from the grand mean across all observations.

Role in Experimental Design

In the context of experimental design, main effects represent the individual contributions of treatment factors to the overall response in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) framework, as pioneered by in his development of factorial experiments during the early 20th century. Within additive models for ANOVA, the total variation in the response variable decomposes into main effects for each factor plus higher-order interaction terms, allowing researchers to partition the sources of variability systematically. This decomposition, expressed conceptually as the response model Y=μ+∑main effects+∑interactions+ϵY = \mu + \sum \text{main effects} + \sum \text{interactions} + \epsilon, underscores the role of main effects as the baseline components that capture the average influence of each factor across all levels of the others, independent of confounding from uncontrolled variables. Factorial designs particularly leverage main effects to evaluate the isolated impact of each independent variable on the dependent variable without confounding by other factors, enabling efficient assessment of multiple treatments within a single experiment. For instance, in a two-factor design, the main effect of one factor averages its effect across the levels of the second, providing clear insights into individual factor potency while maximizing experimental efficiency compared to one-factor-at-a-time approaches. This structure, originating from Fisher's agricultural experiments, facilitates the identification of key drivers of outcomes in fields like psychology and biology. Unlike blocking, which accounts for nuisance variables through randomization within blocks to reduce error variance, or covariates in ANCOVA that adjust for continuous predictors, main effects specifically target the direct effects of categorical treatment factors in crossed designs. Main effects thus emphasize controlled manipulations of interest, distinguishing them from strategies for handling extraneous influences. Interpreting main effects requires careful consideration of interactions; they are meaningful primarily when interactions are absent or non-significant, as significant interactions indicate that a factor's effect varies by levels of another, rendering isolated main effect interpretations potentially misleading. In such cases, researchers must prioritize interaction analysis before drawing conclusions about individual factors, ensuring robust inference in experimental outcomes.

Estimation Methods

In One-Way Designs

In one-way designs, the estimation of main effects occurs within the context of a single factor, or treatment, with kk fixed levels, where each level has nn independent observations, assuming a balanced design for simplicity. This setup is foundational to analysis of variance (ANOVA), originally developed by Ronald A. Fisher to partition observed variability into components attributable to the factor and random error. Here, the main effect represents the only systematic effect present, as no other factors or interactions are considered. The statistical model for a one-way fixed-effects ANOVA is given by Yij=μ+τi+ϵij,Y_{ij} = \mu + \tau_i + \epsilon_{ij}, where YijY_{ij} is the jj-th observation under the ii-th level of the factor (i=1,…,ki = 1, \dots, k; j=1,…,nj = 1, \dots, n), μ\mu is the overall population mean, τi\tau_i is the fixed effect of the ii-th level, and ϵij\epsilon_{ij} are independent random errors normally distributed with mean 0 and variance σ2\sigma^2. The main effect estimate for level ii is then τ^i=Yˉi..−Yˉ...,\hat{\tau}_i = \bar{Y}_{i..} - \bar{Y}_{...}, where Yˉi..\bar{Y}_{i..} denotes the sample mean for level ii and Yˉ...\bar{Y}_{...} is the grand mean across all observations. This least-squares estimator measures the deviation of each level's mean from the grand mean, providing a point estimate of the factor's influence. To quantify the overall variability due to the main effect, the sum of squares for the factor (often denoted SSASS_A) is calculated as SSA=n∑i=1k(Yˉi..−Yˉ...)2.SS_A = n \sum_{i=1}^k (\bar{Y}_{i..} - \bar{Y}_{...})^2. This term captures the between-group variation scaled by the sample size per level, serving as the basis for further analysis in the ANOVA table. The associated degrees of freedom for the main effect is k−1k - 1, reflecting the number of independent comparisons among the kk levels. Interpretation of the main effect estimates focuses on their sign and magnitude relative to the grand mean, which acts as a baseline. A positive τ^i\hat{\tau}_i indicates that level ii elevates the response above the average, while a negative value suggests a depressive effect; the absolute size quantifies the strength of this directional influence. These estimates assume the constraint ∑i=1kτi=0\sum_{i=1}^k \tau_i = 0 for identifiability in the fixed-effects model.

In Multi-Factor Designs

In multi-factor designs, such as factorial experiments, the estimation of a main effect for a given factor involves marginalizing over the levels of all other factors to isolate its independent contribution to the response variable. This averaging process ensures that the effect attributed to the factor of interest is not confounded by the specific combinations of other factors. For instance, in a balanced two-way factorial design with factor A having aa levels and factor B having bb levels, the main effect of A is computed by first obtaining the marginal means for each level of A, which average the cell responses across all levels of B. The least squares estimator for the main effect of level ii of factor A is given by α^i=1b∑j=1bYˉij.−Yˉ...,\hat{\alpha}_i = \frac{1}{b} \sum_{j=1}^b \bar{Y}_{ij.} - \bar{Y}_{...}, where Yˉij.\bar{Y}_{ij.} is the sample mean of the observations in the cell corresponding to level ii of A and level jj of B, and Yˉ...\bar{Y}_{...} is the grand mean of all observations. This formula represents the deviation of the marginal mean for level ii of A from the overall mean, effectively capturing the average difference attributable to A while averaging out B's influence. The approach aligns with the one-way estimation as a special case when B has only one level. To quantify the total variation explained by the main effect of A, the sum of squares is calculated as SSA=n∑i=1a(Yˉi..−Yˉ...)2,SS_A = n \sum_{i=1}^a (\bar{Y}_{i..} - \bar{Y}_{...})^2, with degrees of freedom dfA=a−1df_A = a - 1, where Yˉi..\bar{Y}_{i..} is the marginal mean for level ii of A (averaged over B), and nn denotes the number of observations per marginal level in the balanced case. This measure partitions the total variability in a way that attributes to A the squared deviations of its marginal means from the grand mean, scaled appropriately by the design structure. This estimation procedure generalizes seamlessly to higher-order factorial designs, such as three-way or more complex layouts, where the main effect for a specific factor is estimated by averaging the response over all combinations of the remaining factors, thereby disregarding higher-order interactions during the marginalization step. In cases of unequal cell sizes, or unbalanced designs, direct averaging is adjusted using least squares estimation to obtain unbiased parameter estimates or weighted averages proportional to sample sizes, ensuring the main effects reflect the underlying population differences without distortion from the imbalance.

Statistical Testing

Hypothesis Testing Procedures

In hypothesis testing for main effects within analysis of variance (ANOVA) frameworks, the null hypothesis posits that there is no effect of the factor on the response variable, meaning all associated population means are equal or, equivalently, all main effect parameters are zero. For a factor A with aa levels, this is formally stated as H0:α1=α2=⋯=αa=0H_0: \alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = \dots = \alpha_a = 0, where αi\alpha_i represents the main effect parameter for level ii. The alternative hypothesis HAH_A asserts that at least one αi≠0\alpha_i \neq 0, indicating a significant main effect. The primary inferential tool for testing this null hypothesis is the F-test, which compares the variability attributable to the main effect against the unexplained error variability. The test statistic is calculated as F=MSAMSE,F = \frac{MS_A}{MS_E}, where MSAMS_A is the mean square for factor A, given by MSA=SSAa−1MS_A = \frac{SS_A}{a-1} with SSASS_A as the sum of squares for A, and MSEMS_E is the mean square error representing residual variability. Under the null hypothesis, this F-statistic follows an F-distribution with a−1a-1 numerator degrees of freedom and N−aN - a denominator degrees of freedom, where NN is the total sample size. Ronald Fisher introduced this F-test in the context of ANOVA to assess variance partitions in experimental designs. In multi-factor designs, such as two-way ANOVA, separate F-tests are conducted for each main effect, with the test for a given factor analogous to the one-way case but using the appropriate sums of squares and degrees of freedom. For instance, in a two-way design with factors A and B, the main effect F-test for A uses MSA/MSEMS_A / MS_E with degrees of freedom (a−1,N−ab)(a-1, N - ab), where bb is the number of levels of B. If an interaction term is present, its significance is typically tested first; a significant interaction may qualify the interpretation of main effects, though main effect tests proceed independently under the fixed-effects model. The p-value from the F-test is the probability of observing an F-statistic at least as extreme as the calculated value assuming the null hypothesis is true. A common decision rule rejects H0H_0 if the p-value is less than a pre-specified significance level α\alpha, such as 0.05, indicating sufficient evidence of a main effect. This threshold controls the Type I error rate at α\alpha. Power analysis for detecting main effects relies on effect size measures to quantify the magnitude of non-null effects and inform sample size requirements. Eta-squared (η2\eta^2), defined as the proportion of total variance explained by the main effect (η2=SSA/SStotal\eta^2 = SS_A / SS_{total}), serves as a key effect size metric, with guidelines classifying values of 0.01 as small, 0.06 as medium, and 0.14 as large. Partial eta-squared extends this for multi-factor designs by isolating the effect relative to other sources of variance. Higher effect sizes increase statistical power, the probability of correctly rejecting H0H_0 when a true main effect exists, typically targeted at 0.80 or higher in planning.

Assumptions and Limitations

The analysis of main effects in experimental designs, particularly through analysis of variance (ANOVA), relies on several key assumptions to ensure valid inference. These include the independence of observations, which requires that data points are collected such that the value of one observation does not influence another, often achieved through random sampling or blocking in experimental setups. Additionally, the residuals (errors) should be normally distributed within each group, and the variances across groups must be homogeneous (homoscedasticity). Violations of these assumptions can compromise the reliability of hypothesis tests for main effects, as outlined in standard statistical procedures. Homogeneity of variances can be assessed using Levene's test, which evaluates whether the spread of data is similar across factor levels; a non-significant result (typically p > 0.05) supports the assumption. Non-normality of errors may lead to inflated Type I error rates, particularly in small samples or with skewed distributions, potentially resulting in false positives for main effects. Similarly, heteroscedasticity (unequal variances) can bias the F-statistic used in ANOVA, increasing error rates especially in unbalanced designs. In such cases, robust alternatives like Welch's ANOVA are recommended, as it adjusts to accommodate unequal variances and maintains control over Type I errors without requiring normality, making it suitable for main effect estimation in violated conditions. A significant limitation of main effect arises when interactions between factors are present, as the average effect of a factor may obscure or mislead interpretations of group differences. For instance, qualitative interactions—where the direction of the main effect reverses across levels of another factor—can render the overall main effect uninterpretable, as it averages opposing trends. Quantitative interactions, involving differences in magnitude but not direction, may also qualify main effects, emphasizing the need to test and report interactions first. Traditional ANOVA focuses primarily on significance testing, often overlooking measures such as partial eta-squared, which quantifies the proportion of variance explained by a main effect while partialling out other factors; values of 0.01, 0.06, and 0.14 indicate small, medium, and large effects, respectively, providing context beyond p-values. Main effect analysis should be avoided or deprioritized in designs exhibiting strong interactions, where interpreting the interaction term takes precedence to avoid misleading conclusions about individual factors. Overall, while ANOVA is robust to mild violations in large samples, persistent breaches necessitate transformations, non-parametric tests, or robust methods to safeguard the validity of main effect inferences.

Applications and Examples

Illustrative Example

Consider a hypothetical experiment examining the effects of dose (factor A: low or high) and exposure time (factor B: 1 hour or 2 hours) on plant growth measured in centimeters, with three replicates per treatment combination for a total of 12 observations. This balanced two-way allows and testing of the main effect of dose while controlling for time. The cell means, computed as the average growth within each dose-time combination, are as follows:
Dose \ Time1 hour2 hoursMarginal Mean (A)
Low6.58.57.5
High11.513.512.5
Marginal Mean (B)9.011.0Grand mean: 10.0
The main effect estimates for factor A are obtained by subtracting the from each marginal mean for dose: α^1=7.5−10.0=−2.5\hat{\alpha}_1 = 7.5 - 10.0 = -2.5 for the low dose level and α^2=12.5−10.0=2.5\hat{\alpha}_2 = 12.5 - 10.0 = 2.5 for the high dose level. These values represent the average deviation in plant growth attributable to dose, averaged across exposure times. To test the significance of this main effect, perform a two-way ANOVA, partitioning the total variability into components for dose, time, their interaction, and error. The sums of squares (SS) are calculated using standard formulas: for dose, SS_A = (number of observations per dose level) × (deviation of each marginal mean from )² = 6 × [(-2.5)² + (2.5)²] = 75. (df) for A is 1, so the (MS_A) = 75 / 1 = 75. Assuming SS_error = 73 (df_error = 8, from total df = 11 minus 3 for factors and interaction), MS_error = 73 / 8 = 9.125. The F-statistic for the main effect of dose is then MS_A / MS_error = 75 / 9.125 ≈ 8.22. The complete ANOVA table is:
SourcedfSSMSFp-value
Dose (A)175758.220.02
Time (B)112121.30.28
A × B10001.00
Error8739.125
Total11160
This table shows the F-statistic of 8.22 for dose, with a of 0.02 (obtained from the with df = 1, 8), rejecting the of no main effect at α = 0.05. The significant main effect indicates that plant growth differs substantially by fertilizer dose, with an average increase of 5 cm under high dose compared to low dose, averaged over exposure times (F(1,8) = 8.22, p = 0.02). No significant effects are found for time or the interaction. A plotting the marginal means for dose (7.5 cm for low, 12.5 cm for high) would visually emphasize this difference, with representing the of the means to convey variability.

Extensions and Variations

Non-parametric methods provide alternatives to traditional ANOVA for assessing main effects when data violate assumptions such as normality or homogeneity of variances. The Kruskal-Wallis test serves as a rank-based analog to the one-way ANOVA, evaluating the main effect of a single factor across multiple independent groups by ranking all observations and comparing the mean ranks between groups. For multi-factor designs, the aligned rank transform (ART) extends this approach by aligning data for each effect of interest—such as main effects—before applying a rank transformation and conducting a standard ANOVA on the ranks, enabling nonparametric analysis of factorial structures without assuming parametric distributions. In hierarchical or clustered data, mixed-effects models incorporate main effects of fixed factors while accounting for random effects from grouping variables, such as subjects or sites, to handle dependencies in repeated measures or nested designs. These models estimate main effects through fixed-effect coefficients in a linear predictor, with the lmer function in R's lme4 package facilitating fitting via maximum likelihood or , as demonstrated in applications to longitudinal studies where random intercepts capture variability across clusters. Beyond significance testing, reporting effect sizes for main effects quantifies their practical magnitude in ANOVA contexts. Cohen's f measures the standardized difference in means across groups for a main effect, with benchmarks indicating small (f = 0.10), medium (f = 0.25), and large (f = 0.40) effects based on conventions. Alternatively, omega-squared (ω²) provides an unbiased estimate of the proportion of variance explained by a main effect, preferred over eta-squared for its correction for and bias in small samples. Recent advancements integrate main effect concepts with and Bayesian frameworks. In tree-based models like random forests, SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values approximate main effects by attributing the average marginal contribution of each feature to predictions, offering interpretable insights into feature importance akin to ANOVA main effects in non-linear settings. Bayesian estimation of main effects employs priors on effect sizes or variances to compute posterior distributions, enabling credible intervals and model comparisons via Bayes factors, as implemented in packages like brms for to handle uncertainty in ANOVA-like designs.

References

  1. https://opentext.wsu.edu/carriecuttler/chapter/9-2-main-effects-and-interactions/
  2. https://www.stat.cmu.edu/~hseltman/309/Book/chapter11.pdf
  3. https://psych.hanover.edu/classes/researchmethods/readings/main_effects_and_interactions.pdf
  4. https://pages.uoregon.edu/stevensj/interaction.pdf
  5. https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2009/03/27/main_effects_an/
  6. https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Statistics/Natural_Resources_Biometrics_(Kiernan)/06%3A_Two-way_Analysis_of_Variance/6.01%3A_Main_Effects_and_Interaction_Effect
  7. https://onlinestatbook.com/2/analysis_of_variance/multiway.html
  8. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat503/lesson/1/1.1
  9. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat502/book/export/html/785
  10. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/software/dataplot/refman1/auxillar/onewayan.htm
  11. https://onlinestatbook.com/2/analysis_of_variance/anova.pdf
  12. https://influentialpoints.com/Training/one-way_fixed_effects_anova-principles-properties-assumptions.htm
  13. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat200/book/export/html/212
  14. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section4/prc437.htm
  15. https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/110/Lecture18.pdf
  16. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/one-way-anova/
  17. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat462/node/107/
  18. https://www.jmp.com/en/statistics-knowledge-portal/one-way-anova
  19. https://blog.minitab.com/en/blog/adventures-in-statistics-2/understanding-analysis-of-variance-anova-and-the-f-test
  20. https://ia601406.us.archive.org/2/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.137901/2015.137901.Statistical-Methods-For-Research-Workers-Thirteenth-Edition_text.pdf
  21. https://www.scribbr.com/statistics/two-way-anova/
  22. https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statistics-probability/analysis-of-variance-anova-library/analysis-of-variance-anova/v/anova-3-hypothesis-test-with-f-statistic
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4977355/
  24. https://www.statology.org/eta-squared/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1747938X11000029
  26. https://www.statisticssolutions.com/free-resources/directory-of-statistical-analyses/assumptions-of-the-factorial-anova/
  27. https://www.editage.com/blog/anova-types-uses-assumptions-a-quick-guide-for-biomedical-researchers/
  28. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/afex/vignettes/assumptions_of_ANOVAs.html
  29. https://usq.pressbooks.pub/statisticsforresearchstudents/chapter/one-way-anova-assumptions/
  30. https://msed.vse.cz/msed_2014/article/342-Marcinko-Tomas-paper.pdf
  31. https://www.tqmp.org/RegularArticles/vol19-3/p281/p281.pdf
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016926078890003X
  33. https://statisticsbyjim.com/anova/welchs-anova-compared-to-classic-one-way-anova/
  34. https://stats.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Applied_Statistics/Natural_Resources_Biometrics_%28Kiernan%29/06%253A_Two-way_Analysis_of_Variance/6.01%253A_Main_Effects_and_Interaction_Effect
  35. https://www.davidschuster.info/books/statistics-legacy/two-way-analysis-of-variance-anova.html
  36. https://resources.nu.edu/statsresources/eta
  37. https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/one-way-anova-statistical-guide-3.php
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6618269/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.