Skip to content

Incomplete Factorial design

3 messages · Simon Fear, Thomas Lumley, Spencer Graves

#
One could also fit

fit <- lm(y~A*B - 1, data.frame(y=..., A=..., B=..,)

which will give a direct a:b term (as the negative of the
intercept in Spenser's formulation). Arguably this is more
natural in a setting where there is no placebo so that
an intercept term has a less obvious interpretation.
http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
______________________________________________
R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html  
 
Simon Fear 
Senior Statistician 
Syne qua non Ltd 
Tel: +44 (0) 1379 644449 
Fax: +44 (0) 1379 644445 
email: Simon.Fear at synequanon.com 
web: http://www.synequanon.com 
  
Number of attachments included with this message: 0 
  
This message (and any associated files) is confidential and\...{{dropped}}
#
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Simon Fear wrote:

            
I would have though the natural analysis was to compare A+B to B alone and
A+B to A alone with two separate t.tests, and power the analysis for
these.  It's not really a factorial design at all.

	-thomas
#
Hi, Simon:  Excellent observation, reinforcing the point that 
interpretation of confounded effects depends on the context. 

      Best Wishes,
      spencer graves
Simon Fear wrote: