aov vs. glm
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 18:22 -0500, Lara R. Appleby 04 wrote:
I'm trying to basically do a two way ANOVA on the dependent variable (clutchsize) with the two independent variables (treatment and species). It seems that there are three ways I can say this in R: 1. glm(clutchsize~treatment*species) 2. aov(clutchsize~treatment*species) 3. anova(lm(clutchsize~treatment*species) Methods 2 and 3 yield equivalent results, but Method 1 is completely different!
I don't believe you; care to provide supporting evidence?
Here is a counter example that shows that these are
## From Venables and Ripley (2002) p.165.
data(npk, package="MASS")
## Set orthogonal contrasts.
op <- options(contrasts=c("contr.helmert", "contr.poly"))
npk.glm <- glm(yield ~ block + N*P*K, data = npk)
npk.aov <- aov(yield ~ block + N*P*K, data = npk)
npk.lm <- lm(yield ~ block + N*P*K, data = npk)
anova(npk.glm, test = "F")
anova(npk.lm)
summary(npk.aov)
options(op)
All three give the same results:
anova(npk.glm, test = "F")
Analysis of Deviance Table
Model: gaussian, link: identity
Response: yield
Terms added sequentially (first to last)
Df Deviance Resid. Df Resid. Dev F Pr(>F)
NULL 23 876.37
block 5 343.30 18 533.07 4.4467 0.015939 *
N 1 189.28 17 343.79 12.2587 0.004372 **
P 1 8.40 16 335.39 0.5441 0.474904
K 1 95.20 15 240.19 6.1657 0.028795 *
N:P 1 21.28 14 218.90 1.3783 0.263165
N:K 1 33.14 13 185.77 2.1460 0.168648
P:K 1 0.48 12 185.29 0.0312 0.862752
N:P:K 0 0.00 12 185.29
---
Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1
anova(npk.lm)
Analysis of Variance Table
Response: yield
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
block 5 343.29 68.659 4.4467 0.015939 *
N 1 189.28 189.282 12.2587 0.004372 **
P 1 8.40 8.402 0.5441 0.474904
K 1 95.20 95.202 6.1657 0.028795 *
N:P 1 21.28 21.282 1.3783 0.263165
N:K 1 33.14 33.135 2.1460 0.168648
P:K 1 0.48 0.482 0.0312 0.862752
Residuals 12 185.29 15.441
---
Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1
summary(npk.aov)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) block 5 343.29 68.659 4.4467 0.015939 * N 1 189.28 189.282 12.2587 0.004372 ** P 1 8.40 8.402 0.5441 0.474904 K 1 95.20 95.202 6.1657 0.028795 * N:P 1 21.28 21.282 1.3783 0.263165 N:K 1 33.14 33.135 2.1460 0.168648 P:K 1 0.48 0.482 0.0312 0.862752 Residuals 12 185.29 15.441 --- Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1 HTH G
Any idea why? Lara Appleby
_______________________________________________ R-sig-ecology mailing list R-sig-ecology at r-project.org https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-ecology
%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%