1986
DOI: 10.2307/2684597
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the History of ANOVA in Unbalanced, Factorial Designs: The First 30 Years

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0

Year Published

1988
1988
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
25
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Estimating deviance contributions was complicated by the consistently large effect of sampling effort in two of our analyses (local‐scale pollinators = log(replicates), DBIF = log(sources)), so we calculated two measures that incorporated the type I and type II SS (Herr, ) explained by our predictors of interest. A minimum estimate of the deviance ( D ) explained by all other predictors after accounting for sampling effort:D=type II deviance of all other predictorsnull deviance-type II deviance of sampling effort A maximum estimate of the deviance ( D ) explained by all other predictors after accounting for sampling effort: D=type I deviance of all other predictors+type II deviance of all other predictorsnull deviancetype II deviance of sampling effort …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Estimating deviance contributions was complicated by the consistently large effect of sampling effort in two of our analyses (local‐scale pollinators = log(replicates), DBIF = log(sources)), so we calculated two measures that incorporated the type I and type II SS (Herr, ) explained by our predictors of interest. A minimum estimate of the deviance ( D ) explained by all other predictors after accounting for sampling effort:D=type II deviance of all other predictorsnull deviance-type II deviance of sampling effort A maximum estimate of the deviance ( D ) explained by all other predictors after accounting for sampling effort: D=type I deviance of all other predictors+type II deviance of all other predictorsnull deviancetype II deviance of sampling effort …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We performed SS type III models, presenting partial effects of the variables by controlling for the effect of one variable over all others [53].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used type III sums of squares for the models including interaction, and type II sums of squares for the simplified model without interaction (Herr et al. ). The Kenward‐Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hypotheses were tested using the "ANOVA" function provided by the lmerTest package (Kuznetsova et al 2016). We used type III sums of squares for the models including interaction, and type II sums of squares for the simplified model without interaction (Herr et al 2016). The Kenward-Roger approximation of degrees of freedom was used.…”
Section: Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%