Studies With Covariates

ANOVA vs. ANCOVA and MANOVA vs. MANCOVA

Overview
To look at using covariates in analysis, we will look at real data from two studies.
Study of Child s Self-Concept after Martial Arts Training. (Single Dependent Variable) Study of Neurological treatment on ADHD kids. (Multiple Dependent Variables)

Bonus Study!
Hypothesis: That students in a college statistics class will retain more from classroom presentations if they are bribed. Approximately 20 students will be given chocolate in a college statistics class. Results pending
3

Children in Martial Arts Study Characteristics

Hypothesis: That children will gain positive self-concept after an 8 week martial arts program for kids. Children 7 to 12 years of age with no previous martial arts experience were randomly assigned to either a treatment group that attended martial arts classes for a period of 8 weeks, or to a control group that received no martial arts training.
4

Children in Martial Arts Study Characteristics

Participants were selected from schools in the north Scottsdale, Arizona area. The instrument used to measure selfconcept and body image was the PiersHarris Children s Self-Concept Scale. This is an 80 question test that is easy to take, administer, and score. A Pre and Post test was given.
5

Children in Martial Arts Study Characteristics

Data
Group 1 No Martial Arts Training Group 2 Martial Arts Trained

Children in Martial Arts Analysis

First: analysis on the Post test using the Pre test as a covariate (ANCOVA). Then: analysis by taking a difference score between the Pre and Post test for the treatment and control groups (ANOVA).

Children in Martial Arts ANCOVA

The Pretest scores are not significantly different between groups
Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: PRETEST GROUP Mean Std. Deviation 1 65.5000 6.73525 2 69.7143 9.00793 Total 67.7692 8.16974 N 12 14 26

Estimates Dependent Variable: PRETEST Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 65.500 2.323 60.706 70.294 2 69.714 2.150 65.276 74.153

Children in Martial Arts ANCOVA

The following pages are the ANCOVA Results

10

11

12

Children in Martial Arts ANCOVA

The results didn t reject the null hypothesis (p=.073 level) despite the differences in the means. Looking at the graph of Pretest vs. Post will reveal the ceiling effect.

13

Children in Martial Arts ANCOVA

As the scores approach the maximum (80), the differences between the scores are minimized.

Pretest Mean

14

Estimates Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Std. Error GROUP Bound 1 2 a = 60.00.

95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper

59.310 2.131 54.891 63.729 65.424 2.253 60.752 70.095 Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: PRETEST

Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for Difference (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -6.114 3.101 .061 -12.544 .317 2 1 6.114 3.101 .061 -.317 12.544 Based on estimated marginal means a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

15

Estimates Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 49.570 4.220 40.818 58.323 2 58.360 3.725 50.635 66.084 a Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: PRETEST = 50.00.

Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for Difference (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -8.789 5.629 .133 -20.463 2.884 2 1 8.789 5.629 .133 -2.884 20.463 Based on estimated marginal means a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

16

Estimates Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 62.232 1.739 58.626 65.838 2 67.543 1.897 63.608 71.478 a Evaluated at covariates appeared in the model: PRETEST = 63.00.

Pairwise Comparisons Dependent Variable: POSTTEST Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval for Difference (I) GROUP (J) GROUP Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 2 -5.311 2.574 .051 -10.648 2.640E-02 2 1 5.311 2.574 .051 -2.640E-02 10.648 Based on estimated marginal means a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

17

Children in Martial Arts ANOVA/Difference Scores

Now to repeat the analysis with difference scores.

18

19

20

21

Children in Martial Arts ANOVA/Difference Scores

The difference scores
Mean1=-0.833 Mean2=2.571

22

Children in Martial Arts ANOVA/Difference Scores

This Graph also illustrates Ceiling Effect at maximum Pre scores. No where to go but DOWN
23

ANCOVA vs. ANOVA

The ANCOVA results were more significant because there was more variance in the scores in the Post test compared to the difference scores in the ANOVA. The ceiling effect resulted in difficulty measuring the effects.
24

MANCOVA vs. MANOVA

Now we look at a different data set with multiple independent variables

25

MANCOVA vs. MANOVA Study Characteristics

2 groups-neurological and control 30 children age 6-15 per group 4 time measures:
Immediate Delayed Retrospective Reproduction

Scores on items turned into ratio scores

26

MANCOVA vs. MANOVA Study Characteristics

ADHD Rating Scales
Parent Total Score Teacher Total Score

MANOVA performed to investigate whether population means on the time measures vary across group

27

MANOVA Results
Multivariate Tests(b) Hypothesis F df 615.711(a) 4.000 615.711(a) 615.711(a) 615.711(a) .536(a) .536(a) .536(a) .536(a) 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 Partial Eta Sig. Squared .000 .978 .000 .000 .000 .710 .710 .710 .710 .978 .978 .978 .038 .038 .038 .038 Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root group Pillai's Trace Wilks' Lambda Hotelling's Trace Roy's Largest Root a Exact statistic b Design: Intercept+group Effect Intercept Value .978 .022 44.779 44.779 .038 .962 .039 .039 Error df 55.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 55.000 55.000

28

MANOVA Results
Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: age group school group hospital group Total Mean 8.3667 11.3333 9.8500 Std. Deviation 1.99107 3.41733 3.15060 N 30 30 60

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: age Type III Sum Source df Mean Square of Squares Corrected 132.017(a) 1 132.017 Model Intercept 5821.350 1 5821.350 group 132.017 1 132.017 Error 453.633 58 7.821 Total 6407.000 60 Corrected 585.650 59 Total a R Squared = .225 (Adjusted R Squared = .212)

F 16.879 744.298 16.879

Sig. .000 .000 .000

Partial Eta Squared .225 .928 .225

29

Multivariate Tests(b) Hypothesis df 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000

MANOVA Results
Error df 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 53.000 Sig. Partial Eta Squared .000 .675 .000 .000 .000 .729 .729 .729 .729 .000 .000 .000 .000 .535 .535 .535 .535 .675 .675 .675 .037 .037 .037 .037 .385 .385 .385 .385 .056 .056 .056 .056

Pillai's Trace Wilks' .325 27.498(a) Lambda Hotelling's 2.075 27.498(a) Trace Roy's 2.075 27.498(a) Largest Root group Pillai's Trace .037 .509(a) Wilks' .963 .509(a) Lambda Hotelling's .038 .509(a) Trace Roy's .038 .509(a) Largest Root age Pillai's Trace .385 8.293(a) Wilks' .615 8.293(a) Lambda Hotelling's .626 8.293(a) Trace Roy's .626 8.293(a) Largest Root group * age Pillai's Trace .056 .793(a) Wilks' .944 .793(a) Lambda Hotelling's .060 .793(a) Trace Roy's .060 .793(a) Largest Root a Exact statistic b Design: Intercept+group+age+group * age

Effect Intercept

Value .675

F 27.498(a)

30

MANOVA Results
Descriptive Statistics group school group hospital group Total school group hospital group Total school group hospital group Total school group hospital group Total Mean .55307 .62733 .59020 .5349 .5303 .5326 .5661 .5353 .5507 .8245 .8050 .8148 Std. Deviation .275379 .315299 .295873 .29164 .27997 .28344 .30099 .29399 .29539 .10798 .14640 .12792 N 30 30 60 30 30 60 30 30 60 30 30 60 coding

symbol

birthday

totalflash

31

MANOVA Results
- - - - P A R T I A L C O R R E L A T I O N C O E F F I C I E N T S Controlling for.. CODING CODING 1.0000 ( 0) P= . .4862 ( 57) P= .000 .2568 ( 57) P= .050 .2290 ( 57) P= .081 -.0420 ( 57) P= .752 AGE SYMBOL .4862 ( 57) P= .000 1.0000 ( 0) P= . .2694 ( 57) P= .039 .3525 ( 57) P= .006 -.1352 ( 57) P= .307 BIRTHDAY .2568 ( 57) P= .050 .2694 ( 57) P= .039 1.0000 ( 0) P= . .3815 ( 57) P= .003 -.2591 ( 57) P= .048 TOTALFLA .2290 ( 57) P= .081 .3525 ( 57) P= .006 .3815 ( 57) P= .003 1.0000 ( 0) P= . -.4745 ( 57) P= .000 ADHDPT -.0420 ( 57) P= .752 -.1352 ( 57) P= .307 -.2591 ( 57) P= .048 -.4745 ( 57) P= .000 1.0000 ( 0) P= .

SYMBOL

BIRTHDAY

TOTALFLA

ADHDPT

(Coefficient / (D.F.) / 2-tailed Significance)

32

Covariate Studies - Summary

ANOVA vs. ANCOVA Case (Martial Arts)
In this case we see that ANCOVA is preferable to ANOVA on difference scores and it illustrates the ceiling effect

MANOVA vs. MANCOVA Case Martial Arts Master and Karate Instructor Cave Creek, Chandler, Mesa, Scottsdale www.KarateBuilt.com

33