Chapter 15

Analysis of Variance

15.1 Introduction
Analysis of variance compares two or more
populations of interval data.
Specifically, we are interested in determining
whether differences exist between the population
means.
The procedure works by analyzing the sample
variance.

15.2 One Way Analysis of

Variance
The analysis of variance is a procedure that tests
to determine whether differences exits between
two or more population means.
To do this, the technique analyzes the sample

variances

One Way Analysis of Variance

Example 15.1
An apple juice manufacturer is planning to develop a new
product -a liquid concentrate.
The marketing manager has to decide how to market the
new product.
Three strategies are considered
Emphasize convenience of using the product.
Emphasize the quality of the product.
Emphasize the products low price.

One Way Analysis of Variance

Example 15.1 - continued
An experiment was conducted as follows:
In three cities an advertisement campaign was launched .
In each city only one of the three characteristics
(convenience, quality, and price) was emphasized.
The weekly sales were recorded for twenty weeks
following the beginning of the campaigns.

One Way Analysis of Variance

Convnce
Convnce

Weekly
sales

529
529
658
658
793
793
514
514
663
663
719
719
711
711
606
606
461
Weekly
461
529
529
sales
498
498
663
663
604
604
495
495
485
485
557
557
353
353
557
557
542
542
614
614

Quality
Quality

804
804
630
630
774
774
717
717
679
679
604
604
620
620
697
697
706
706
615
615
492
492
719
719
787
787
699
699
572
572
Weekly
523
523
584
sales
584
634
634
580
580
624
624

Price
Price
672
672
531
531
443
443
596
596
602
602
502
502
659
659
689
689
675
675
512
512
691
691
733
733
698
698
776
776
561
561
572
572
469
469
581
581
679
679
532
532

See file
Xm15 -01

One Way Analysis of Variance

Solution
The data are interval
The problem objective is to compare sales in three
cities.
We hypothesize that the three population means are
equal

Defining the Hypotheses

Solution
H0: 1 = 2= 3
H1: At least two means differ
To build the statistic needed to test the
hypotheses use the following notation:

Notation
Independent samples are drawn from k populations (treatments).
First observation,
first sample
Second observation,
second sample

X11
x21
.
.
.
Xn1,1
n1

X12
x22
.
.
.
Xn2,2

X1k
x2k
.
.
.
Xnk,k

n2

nk

x2

xk

x1
Sample size
Sample mean

X is the response variable.

The variables value are called responses.

Terminology
In the context of this problem
Response variable weekly sales
Responses actual sale values
Experimental unit weeks in the three cities when we
record sales figures.
Factor the criterion by which we classify the populations
(the treatments). In this problems the factor is the marketing
strategy.
Factor levels the population (treatment) names. In this
problem factor levels are the marketing trategies.

The rationale of the test statistic

Two types of variability are employed when
testing for the equality of the population
means

Graphical demonstration:
Employing two types of variability

30

25

x 3 20
20

x 2 15
16
15
14
11
10
9

x 3 20

20
19

x 2 15
x1 10

12
10
9

x1 10

A small variability within

the samples makes it easier
Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
to draw a conclusion about the
population means.

The
1 sample means are the same as before,
but the larger within-sample variability
Treatment 1
Treatment 2 Treatment 3
makes it harder to draw a conclusion
about the population means.

The rationale behind the test statistic I

If the null hypothesis is true, we would expect all
the sample means to be close to one another
(and as a result, close to the grand mean).
If the alternative hypothesis is true, at least
some of the sample means would differ.
Thus, we measure variability between sample
means.

Variability between sample means

The variability between the sample means is
measured as the sum of squared distances
between each mean and the grand mean.
This sum is called the
Sum of Squares for Treatments
SST

In our example treatments are

represented by the different
advertising strategies.

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

k

SST n j ( x j x)

j 1

There are k treatments

The size of sample j

The mean of sample j

Note: When the sample means are close to

one another, their distance from the grand
mean is small, leading to a small SST. Thus,
large SST indicates large variation between
sample means, which supports H1.

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

Solution continued
Calculate SST
x1 577.55 x 2 653.00 x 3 608.65
k

SST n j ( x j x) 2
j 1

The grand mean is calculated by

n1 x1 n2 x 2 ... nk x k
X
n1 n2 ... nk

= 20(577.55 - 613.07)2 +
+ 20(653.00 - 613.07)2 +
+ 20(608.65 - 613.07)2 =
= 57,512.23

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

Is SST = 57,512.23 large enough to

reject H0 in favor of H1?
See next.

The rationale behind test statistic II

Large variability within the samples weakens the
ability of the sample means to represent their
corresponding population means.
Therefore, even though sample means may
markedly differ from one another, SST must be
judged relative to the within samples variability.

Within samples variability

The variability within samples is measured by
adding all the squared distances between
observations and their sample means.
This sum is called the
Sum of Squares for Error
SSE
In our example this is the
sum of all squared differences
between sales in city j and the
sample mean of city j (over all
the three cities).

Sum of squares for errors (SSE)

Solution continued
Calculate SSE
s12 10,775.00 s 22 7,238,11 s32 8,670.24
k

SSE

nj

(xij x j ) 2 (n1 - 1)s12 + (n2 -1)s22 + (n3 -1)s32

j 1 i 1

= (20 -1)10,774.44 + (20 -1)7,238.61+ (20-1)8,670.24

= 506,983.50

Sum of squares for errors (SSE)

Is SST = 57,512.23 large enough

relative to SSE = 506,983.50 to reject
the null hypothesis that specifies that
all the means are equal?

The mean sum of squares

To perform the test we need to calculate
the mean squares as follows:
Calculation of MST Mean Square for Treatments

SST
k 1
57,512.23

3 1
28,756.12

MST

Calculation of MSE
Mean Square for Error

SSE
nk
509,983.50

60 3
8,894.45

MSE

Calculation of the test statistic

Required Conditions:
1. The populations tested
are normally distributed.
2. The variances of all the
populations tested are
equal.

MST
F
MSE
28,756.12

8,894.45
3.23
with the following degrees of freedom:

v1=k -1 and v2=n-k

The F test rejection region

And finally

the hypothesis test:

H0: 1 = 2 = =k
H1: At least two means differ

MST
Test statistic: F MSE
R.R: F>F,k-1,n-k

The F test
MST
MSE
28,756.12

8,894.17
3.23

Ho: 1 = 2= 3
H1: At least two means differ
Test statistic F= MST MSE= 3.23

R.R. : F Fk 1nk F0.05,31,603 3.15

Since 3.23 > 3.15, there is sufficient evidence

to reject Ho in favor of H1, and argue that at least one
of the mean sales is different than the others.

The F test p- value

Use Excel to find the p-value
fx

Statistical

FDIST(3.23,2,57) = .0467

0.1
0.08
0.06

p Value = P(F>3.23) = .0467

0.04
0.02
0
-0.02 0

Excel single factor ANOVA

Xm15-01.xls
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups
Convenience
Quality
Price

Count
20
20
20

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Between Groups
Within Groups

SS
57512
506984

Total

564496

Sum
Average Variance
11551
577.55 10775.00
13060
653.00
7238.11
12173
608.65
8670.24

df

SS(Total) = SST + SSE

2
57
59

MS
28756
8894

P-value
3.23
0.0468

F crit
3.16

15.3 Analysis of Variance

Experimental Designs
Several elements may distinguish between one
experimental design and others.
The number of factors.
Each characteristic investigated is called a factor.
Each factor has several levels.

One - way ANOVA

Single factor

Two - way ANOVA

Two factors

Response

Response

Treatment 3 (level 1)
Treatment 2 (level 2)
Treatment 1 (level 3)

Level2

Level 1

Factor B

Level 3
Level2
Level 1 Factor A

Independent samples or blocks

Groups of matched observations are formed into
blocks, in order to remove the effects of
unwanted variability.
By doing so we improve the chances of
detecting the variability of interest.

Models of Fixed and Random Effects

Fixed effects
If all possible levels of a factor are included in our analysis we
have a fixed effect ANOVA.
The conclusion of a fixed effect ANOVA applies only to the
levels studied.

Random effects
If the levels included in our analysis represent a random
sample of all the possible levels, we have a random-effect
ANOVA.
The conclusion of the random-effect ANOVA applies to all the
levels (not only those studied).

Models of Fixed and Random Effects.

In some ANOVA models the test statistic of the fixed
effects case may differ from the test statistic of the
random effect case.
Fixed and random effects - examples
Fixed effects - The advertisement Example (15.1): All the
levels of the marketing strategies were included
Random effects - To determine if there is a difference in the
production rate of 50 machines, four machines are randomly
selected and there production recorded.

15.4 Randomized Blocks (Two-way)

Analysis of Variance
The purpose of designing a randomized block
experiment is to reduce the within-treatments
variation thus increasing the relative amount of
between treatment variation.
This helps in detecting differences between the
treatment means more easily.

Randomized Blocks
Block all the observations with some
commonality across treatments

Treatment 4
Treatment 3
Treatment 2
Treatment 1

Block3

Block2

Block 1

Randomized Blocks
Block all the observations with some
commonality across treatments
Treatment
Block
1
2
.
.
.
b

Treatment mean

1
2
k Block mean
X11 X12 . . . X1k
x[B]1
X21 X22
X2k
x[B ] 2

Xb1 Xb2

Xbk

x[ T ]1 x[ T ]2

x[ T ]k

x[B]b

Partitioning the total variability

The sum of square total is partitioned into three
Recall.
sources of variation
For the independent
Treatments
Blocks
Within samples (Error)

samples design we have:

SS(Total) = SST + SSE

SS(Total) == SST
SST++ SSB
SSB ++ SSE
SSE
SS(Total)
Sum of square for treatments

Sum of square for blocks

Sum of square for error

Calculating the sums of squares

Formulai for the calculation of the sums of squares
Treatment
Block

SSB=

1
2
k Block mean
k( x[B] ) X
1
X11 X12 . . . X1k
x[B]1

X21 X22
X2k x[B]2

1
2
2

.
k ( x[ B ] 2 ) X
SS (Total ) ( x11 X ) 2 ( x21 X ) 2 ... ( x12 X ) 2 ( x22 X ) 2

.
2
.... ( X 1k X ) 2 ( x2 k X ) 2 ...
k( x[B] ) X
k
b
Xb1 Xb2
Xbk

Treatment mean x[ T ]1 x[ T ]2

SST =

b( x[ T ] ) X b( x[ T ] ) X
1
2

x[ T ]k

... b( x[ T ] k ) X

Calculating the sums of squares

Formulai for the calculation of the sums of squares
Treatment
Block

SSB=

1
2
k Block mean
1
X11 X12 . . . X1k
x[B]1
2
SSE 2( x 11 x[ T ]1 x[X21
B]1 X )X22
( x 21 x[ T ]1X2k
x[B] 2 x[XB)]22 ...
.
(. x 12 x[ T ] 2 x[B]1 X ) 2 ( x 22 x[ T ] 2 x[B] 2 X ) 2 ...
(. x 1k x[ T ]k x[B]1 X ) 2 ( x 2k x[ T ]k x[B] 2 X ) 2 ...
b
Xb1 Xb2
Xbk

Treatment mean x[ T ]1 x[ T ]2

SST =

b( x[ T ] ) X b( x[ T ] ) X
1
2

x[ T ]k
2

... b( x[ T ] k ) X

k( x[B] ) X
1

k( x[B] ) X
2

k( x[B] ) X
k

Mean Squares
To perform hypothesis tests for treatments and blocks we
need
Mean square for treatments
Mean square for blocks
SST
Mean square for error
MST
k 1
SSB
MSB
b 1

SSE
MSE
nk b 1

Test statistics for the randomized block

design ANOVA
Test statistic for treatments

MST
F
MSE
Test statistic for blocks

MSB
F
MSE

The F test rejection regions

Testing the mean responses for treatments

F > F,k-1,n-k-b+1
Testing the mean response for blocks

F> F,b-1,n-k-b+1

Randomized Blocks ANOVA - Example

Example 15.2
Are there differences in the effectiveness of cholesterol
reduction drugs?
To answer this question the following experiment was
organized:
25 groups of men with high cholesterol were matched by age
and weight. Each group consisted of 4 men.
Each person in a group received a different drug.
The cholesterol level reduction in two months was recorded.

Can we infer from the data in Xm15-02 that there are

differences in mean cholesterol reduction among the four
drugs?

Randomized Blocks ANOVA - Example

Solution
Each drug can be considered a treatment.
Each 4 records (per group) can be blocked, because
they are matched by age and weight.
This procedure eliminates the variability in
cholesterol reduction related to different
combinations of age and weight.
This helps detect differences in the mean cholesterol
reduction attributed to the different drugs.

Randomized Blocks ANOVA - Example

ANOVA
Source of Variation
Rows
Columns
Error

SS
3848.7
196.0
1142.6

Total

5187.2

Treatments

df
24
3
72

MS
160.36
65.32
15.87

F
P-value
10.11
0.0000
4.12
0.0094

F crit
1.67
2.73

99

Blocks b-1 K-1 MST / MSE MSB / MSE

Conclusion: At 5% significance level there is sufficient evidence

to infer that the mean cholesterol reduction gained by at least
two drugs are different.

Chapter 15 - continued

Analysis of Variance

15.5 Two-Factor Analysis of Variance Example 15.3

Suppose in Example 15.1, two factors are to be
examined:
The effects of the marketing strategy on sales.
Emphasis on convenience
Emphasis on quality
Emphasis on price

The effects of the selected media on sales.

Advertise on TV
Advertise in newspapers

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution
We may attempt to analyze combinations of levels, one
from each factor using one-way ANOVA.
The treatments will be:
Treatment 1: Emphasize convenience and advertise in TV
Treatment 2: Emphasize convenience and advertise in
newspapers
.
Treatment 6: Emphasize price and advertise in newspapers

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution
The hypotheses tested are:
H0: 1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6
H1: At least two means differ.

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution
In each one of six cities sales are recorded for ten
weeks.
In each city a different combination of marketing
emphasis and media usage is employed.

City1

Convnce
TV

City2

Convnce
Paper

City3
Quality
TV

City4

Quality
Paper

City5
Price
TV

City6
Price
Paper

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution
City1

Convnce
TV

City2

Convnce
Paper

City3
Quality
TV

City4

Quality
Paper

City5
Price
TV

City6
Price
Paper

Xm15-03
The p-value =.0452.
We conclude that there is evidence that differences
exist in the mean weekly sales among the six cities.

Interesting questions no answers

These result raises some questions:

Are the differences in sales caused by the different
marketing strategies?
Are the differences in sales caused by the different
media used for advertising?
Are there combinations of marketing strategy and
media that interact to affect the weekly sales?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

The current experimental design cannot provide
answers to these questions.
A new experimental design is needed.

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor B:
Advertising media

Factor A: Marketing strategy

Convenience
Quality
Price
TV

Newspapers

City 1
sales

City3
sales

City 5
sales

City 2
sales

City 4
sales

City 6
sales

Are there differences in the mean sales

caused by different marketing strategies?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Test whether mean sales of Convenience, Quality,
and Price significantly differ from one another.
H0: Conv.= Quality = Price
H1: At least two means differ

Calculations are
based on the sum of
square for factor A
SS(A)

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor B:
Advertising media

Factor A: Marketing strategy

TV

Newspapers

Convenience

Quality

Price

City 1
sales

City 3
sales

City 5
sales

City 2
sales

City 4
sales

City 6
sales

Are there differences in the mean sales

caused by different advertising media?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Test whether mean sales of the TV, and Newspapers

significantly differ from one another.
H0: TV = Newspapers
H1: The means differ

Calculations are based on

the sum of square for factor B
SS(B)

Factor B:
Advertising media

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor A: Marketing strategy
Convenience
Quality
Price
TV
TV

Newspapers

City 1
sales

City 3
sales

City 5
sales

City 2
sales

City 4
sales

City 6
sales

Are there differences in the mean sales

caused by interaction between marketing
strategy and advertising medium?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Test whether mean sales of certain cells
are different than the level expected.
Calculation are based on the sum of square for interaction
SS(AB)

Graphical description
description ofof the
the possible
possible
Graphical
relationships between
between factors
factorsAAand
and B.
B.
relationships

Difference between the levels of factor A, and Difference between the levels of factor A
difference between the levels of factor B; no
No difference between the levels of factor B
interaction
M R
Level 1 of factor B
Level 1and 2 of factor B
e e
s
a p
Level 2 of factor B
n o
n
s
e
Levels of factor A
Levels of factor A

M R
e e
s
a p
n o
n
s
e
1
M R
e e
s
a p
n o
n
s
e

No difference between the levels of factor A.

Difference between the levels of factor B

M R
e e
s
a p
n o
n
s
e

2
Interaction

Levels of factor A
1

Levels of factor A
3

Sums of squares
a

SS( A ) rb

i 1
b

SS(B) ra

( x[ A ]i x)2

( x[ B ] j x ) 2

(10(2){( xconv. x) 2 ( xquality x) 2 ( x price x) 2 }

(10)(3){( xTV x) 2 ( x Newspaper x) 2 }

j 1

SS( AB) r
i 1

SSE

2
(
x
[
AB
]

x
[
A
]

x
[
B
]

x
)

ij
i
j
j 1

i 1

j 1

k 1

( xijk x[ AB ]ij ) 2

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Test for the difference between the levels of the main
factors
A
and
B
SS(A)/(a-1)

MS(A)
F=
MSE
Rejection region: F > F,a-1 ,n-ab

MS(B)
F=
MSE

SS(B)/(b-1)
SSE/(n-ab)

F > F, b-1, n-ab

Test for interaction between factors A and B

Rejection region:

MS(AB)
F=
MSE
F > Fa-1)(b-1),n-ab

SS(AB)/(a-1)(b-1)

Required conditions:
1. The response distributions is normal
2. The treatment variances are equal.
3. The samples are independent.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued( Xm15-03)
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper
Newspaper

Convenience

Quality

Price

491
712
558
447
479
624
546
444
582
672
464
559
759
557
528
670
534
657
557
474

677
627
590
632
683
760
690
548
579
644
689
650
704
652
576
836
628
798
497
841

575
614
706
484
478
650
583
536
579
795
803
584
525
498
812
565
708
546
616
587

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the three marketing
strategies
H0: conv. = quality = price
H1: At least two mean sales are different
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Sample
Columns
Interaction
Within

SS
13172.0
98838.6
1609.6
501136.7

Total

614757.0

df
1
2
2
54

MS
13172.0
49419.3
804.8
9280.3

P-value
1.42
0.2387
5.33
0.0077
0.09
0.9171

F crit
4.02
3.17
3.17

59

Factor A Marketing strategies

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the three marketing
strategies
H0: conv. = quality = price
H1: At least two mean sales are different

MS(A)MSE

F = MS(Marketing strategy)/MSE = 5.33

Fcritical = F,a-1,n-ab = F.05,3-1,60-(3)(2) = 3.17; (p-value = .0077)

At 5% significance level there is evidence to infer that differences

in weekly sales exist among the marketing strategies.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the two advertising
media
H0: TV. = Nespaper
H1: The two mean sales differ
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Sample
Columns
Interaction
Within

SS
13172.0
98838.6
1609.6
501136.7

Total

614757.0

df
1
2
2
54

MS
13172.0
49419.3
804.8
9280.3

F
1.42
5.33
0.09

P-value
0.2387
0.0077
0.9171

59

Factor B = Advertising media

F crit
4.02
3.17
3.17

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the two
advertising media
H0: TV. = Nespaper
H1: The two mean sales differ

MS(B)MSE

F = MS(Media)/MSE = 1.42
Fcritical = Fa-1,n-ab = F.05,2-1,60-(3)(2) = 4.02 (p-value = .2387)

At 5% significance level there is insufficient evidence to infer

that differences in weekly sales exist between the two
advertising media.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test for interaction between factors A and B
H0: TV*conv. = TV*quality ==newsp.*price
H1: At least two means differ
ANOVA
Source of Variation
Sample
Columns
Interaction
Within

SS
13172.0
98838.6
1609.6
501136.7

Total

614757.0

df
1
2
2
54

MS
13172.0
49419.3
804.8
9280.3

P-value
1.42
0.2387
5.33
0.0077
0.09
0.9171

F crit
4.02
3.17
3.17

59

Interaction AB = Marketing*Media

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test for interaction between factor A and B
H0: TV*conv. = TV*quality ==newsp.*price
H1: At least two means differ

MS(AB)MSE

F = MS(Marketing*Media)/MSE = .09
Fcritical = Fa-1)(b-1),n-ab = F.05,(3-1)(2-1),60-(3)(2) = 3.17 (p-value= .9171)

At 5% significance level there is insufficient evidence to infer

that the two factors interact to affect the mean weekly sales.

15.7 Multiple Comparisons

When the null hypothesis is rejected, it may be
desirable to find which mean(s) is (are) different,
and at what ranking order.
Three statistical inference procedures, geared at
doing this, are presented:
Fishers least significant difference (LSD) method
Bonferroni adjustment
Tukeys multiple comparison method

15.7 Multiple Comparisons

Two means are considered different if the difference
between the corresponding sample means is larger than
a critical number. Then, the larger sample mean is
believed to be associated with a larger population
mean.
Conditions common to all the methods here:
The ANOVA model is the one way analysis of variance
The conditions required to perform the ANOVA are satisfied.
The experiment is fixed-effect

Fisher Least Significant Different (LSD) Method

This method builds on the equal variances t-test of the
difference between two means.
The test statistic is improved by using MSE rather than sp2.
We can conclude that i and j differ (at % significance
level if |i - j| > LSD, where

1 1
LSD t 2 MSE( )
ni n j
d.f . n k

Experimentwise Type I error rate ( E)

(the effective Type I error)
The Fishers method may result in an increased probability of
committing a type I error.
The experimentwise Type I error rate is the probability of
committing at least one Type I error at significance level of It
iscalculated by
E = 1-(1 )C
where C is the number of pairwise comparisons (I.e.
C = k(k-1)/2
The Bonferroni adjustment determines the required Type I error
probability per pairwise comparison () , to secure a predetermined overall E

Bonferroni Adjustment
The procedure:
Compute the number of pairwise comparisons (C)
[C=k(k-1)/2], where k is the number of populations.
Set = E/C, where E is the true probability of making at
least one Type I error (called experimentwise Type I error).
We can conclude that i and j differ (at /C% significance
level if

i j t ( 2C )
d.f . n k

1 1
MSE( )
ni n j

Fisher and Bonferroni Methods

Example 15.1 - continued
Rank the effectiveness of the marketing strategies
(based on mean weekly sales).
Use the Fishers method, and the Bonferroni adjustment method
Solution (the Fishers method)
The sample mean sales were 577.55, 653.0, 608.65.
Then,

x1 x 2 577.55 653.0 75.45

x1 x 3 577.55 608.65 31.10

t 2

1 1
MSE( )
ni n j

x 2 x 3 653.0 608.65 44.35 t .05 / 2 8894(1/ 20) (1/ 20) 59.71

Fisher and Bonferroni Methods

Solution (the Bonferroni adjustment)
We calculate C=k(k-1)/2 to be 3(2)/2 = 3.
We set = .05/3 = .0167, thus t.01672, 60-3 = 2.467 (Excel).
x1 x 2 577.55 653.0 75.45

1 1
t 2 MSE( )
ni n j
x1 x 3 577.55 608.65 31.10
x 2 x 3 653.0 608.65 44.35 2.467 8894(1/ 20) (1/ 20) 73.54

Again, the significant difference is between 1 and 2.

Tukey Multiple Comparisons

The test procedure:
Find a critical number as follows:

MSE
q (k, )
ng
k = the number of samples
=degrees of freedom = n - k
ng = number of observations per sample
(recall, all the sample sizes are the same)
= significance level
q(k,) = a critical value obtained from the studentized range table

Tukey Multiple Comparisons

Select a pair of means. Calculate the difference
between the larger and the smaller mean. xmax xmin
If xmax xmin there is sufficient evidence to
conclude that max > min .

Repeat this procedure for each pair of samples.

Rank the means if possible.
If the sample sizes are not extremely different, we can use the
above procedure with ng calculated as the harmonic mean of
the sample sizes.

ng

k
1 n1 1 n2 ...1 nk

Tukey Multiple Comparisons

Example 15.1 - continued We had three populations
(three marketing strategies).
K = 3,
Sample sizes were equal. n1 = n2 = n3 = 20,
= n-k = 60-3 = 57,
Take q.05(3,60) from the table.
MSE = 8894.

MSE
8894
q (k, )
q.05 (3,57)
71.70
ng
20
Population

Mean

Sales - City 1 577.55

Sales - City 2 653
Sales - City 3 698.65

xmax xmin

xmax xmin

City 1 vs. City 2: 653 - 577.55 = 75.45

City 1 vs. City 3: 608.65 - 577.55 = 31.1
City 2 vs. City 3: 653 - 608.65 = 44.35

Excel Tukey and Fisher LSD method

Xm15-01
Fishers LDS = .05
Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Omega
Treatment
Treatment Difference Alpha = 0.05 Alpha = 0.05
Convenience Quality
-75.45
59.72
71.70
Price
-31.1
59.72
71.70
Quality
Price
44.35
59.72
71.70

Bonferroni adjustments = .05/3 = .0167

Multiple Comparisons
LSD
Omega
Treatment
Treatment Difference Alpha = 0.0167 Alpha = 0.05
Convenience Quality
-75.45
73.54
71.70
Price
-31.1
73.54
71.70
Quality
Price
44.35
73.54
71.70