This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the righthand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table
Two categorical, the first with $I$ independent groups and the second with $J$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$, $J \geqslant 2$)
One within subject factor ($\geq 2$ related groups)
None
2 paired groups
None
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One of ordinal level
One categorical with $J$ independent groups ($J \geqslant 2$)
One of ordinal level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{0} for main and interaction effects together (model): no main effects and interaction effect
H_{0} for independent variable A: no main effect for A
H_{0} for independent variable B: no main effect for B
H_{0} for the interaction term: no interaction effect between A and B
Like in one way ANOVA, we can also perform $t$ tests for specific contrasts and multiple comparisons. This is more advanced stuff.
H_{0}: the population scores in any of the related groups are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in any of the other related groups
Usually the related groups are the different measurement points. Several different formulations of the null hypothesis can be found in the literature, and we do not agree with all of them. Make sure you (also) learn the one that is given in your text book or by your teacher.
H_{0}: the population proportions in each of the $J$ conditions are $\pi_1$, $\pi_2$, $\ldots$, $\pi_J$
or equivalently
H_{0}: the probability of drawing an observation from condition 1 is $\pi_1$, the probability of drawing an observation from condition 2 is $\pi_2$, $\ldots$,
the probability of drawing an observation from condition $J$ is $\pi_J$
H_{0}: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) = P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{0}: the population median of the difference scores is equal to zero
A difference score is the difference between the first score of a pair and the second score of a pair.
H_{0}: $\pi = \pi_0$
Here $\pi$ is the population proportion of 'successes', and $\pi_0$ is the population proportion of successes according to the null hypothesis.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{1} for main and interaction effects together (model): there is a main effect for A, and/or for B, and/or an interaction effect
H_{1} for independent variable A: there is a main effect for A
H_{1} for independent variable B: there is a main effect for B
H_{1} for the interaction term: there is an interaction effect between A and B
H_{1}: the population scores in some of the related groups are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in other related groups
H_{1}: the population proportions are not all as specified under the null hypothesis
or equivalently
H_{1}: the probabilities of drawing an observation from each of the conditions are not all as specified under the null hypothesis
H_{1} two sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) $\neq$ P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} right sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) > P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} left sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) < P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{1} two sided: the population median of the difference scores is different from zero
H_{1} right sided: the population median of the difference scores is larger than zero
H_{1} left sided: the population median of the difference scores is smaller than zero
H_{1} two sided: $\pi \neq \pi_0$
H_{1} right sided: $\pi > \pi_0$
H_{1} left sided: $\pi < \pi_0$
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Within each of the $I \times J$ populations, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
The standard deviation of the scores on the dependent variable is the same in each of the $I \times J$ populations
For each of the $I \times J$ groups, the sample is an independent and simple random sample from the population defined by that group. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Equal sample sizes for each group make the interpretation of the ANOVA output easier (unequal sample sizes result in overlap in the sum of squares; this is advanced stuff)
Sample of 'blocks' (usually the subjects) is a simple random sample from the population. That is, blocks are independent of one another
Sample size is large enough for $X^2$ to be approximately chisquared distributed. Rule of thumb: all $J$ expected cell counts are 5 or more
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another
Sample size is large enough for $z$ to be approximately normally distributed. Rule of thumb:
Significance test: $N \times \pi_0$ and $N \times (1  \pi_0)$ are each larger than 10
Regular (large sample) 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: number of successes and number of failures in sample are each 15 or more
Plus four 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: total sample size is 10 or more
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
Here $N$ is the number of 'blocks' (usually the subjects  so if you have 4 repeated measurements for 60 subjects, $N$ equals 60), $k$ is the number of related groups (usually the number of repeated measurements), and $R_i$ is the sum of ranks in group $i$.
Remember that multiplication precedes addition, so first compute $\frac{12}{N \times k(k + 1)} \times \sum R^2_i$ and then subtract $3 \times N(k + 1)$.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for $Q$ is more complicated.
$X^2 = \sum{\frac{(\mbox{observed cell count}  \mbox{expected cell count})^2}{\mbox{expected cell count}}}$
Here the expected cell count for one cell = $N \times \pi_j$, the observed cell count is the observed sample count in that same cell, and the sum is over all $J$ cells.
$W = $ number of difference scores that is larger than 0
$z = \dfrac{p  \pi_0}{\sqrt{\dfrac{\pi_0(1  \pi_0)}{N}}}$
Here $p$ is the sample proportion of successes: $\dfrac{X}{N}$, $N$ is the sample size, and $\pi_0$ is the population proportion of successes according to the null hypothesis.
Pooled standard deviation
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
$
\begin{aligned}
s_p &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score}  \mbox{its group mean})^2}{N  (I \times J)}}\\
&= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\
&= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
For main and interaction effects together (model):
$F$ distribution with $(I  1) + (J  1) + (I  1) \times (J  1)$ (df model, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For independent variable A:
$F$ distribution with $I  1$ (df A, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For independent variable B:
$F$ distribution with $J  1$ (df B, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For the interaction term:
$F$ distribution with $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ (df interaction, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Here $N$ is the total sample size.
If the number of blocks $N$ is large, approximately the chisquared distribution with $k  1$ degrees of freedom.
For small samples, the exact distribution of
$Q$ should be used.
Approximately the chisquared distribution with $J  1$ degrees of freedom
The exact distribution of $W$ under the null hypothesis is the Binomial($n$, $P$) distribution, with $n =$ number of positive differences $+$ number of negative differences, and $P = 0.5$.
If $n$ is large, $W$ is approximately normally distributed under the null hypothesis, with mean $nP = n \times 0.5$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{nP(1P)} = \sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}$. Hence, if $n$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W  n \times 0.5}{\sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
Approximately the standard normal distribution
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Check if $F$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $F^*$ or
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $F$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If the number of blocks $N$ is large, the table with critical $X^2$ values can be used. If we denote $X^2 = Q$:
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If $n$ is small, the table for the binomial distribution should be used:
Two sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If $n$ is large, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
Two sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Two sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\pi$




Regular (large sample):
$p \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p(1  p)}{N}}$
where the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval)
With plus four method:
$p_{plus} \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p_{plus}(1  p_{plus})}{N + 4}}$
where $p_{plus} = \dfrac{X + 2}{N + 4}$ and the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval)
Effect size
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the independent variables and the interaction effect together:
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by an independent variable or interaction effect:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$\eta^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\omega^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $\eta^2$ and is equal to:
$$
\begin{align}
\omega^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}  \mbox{degrees of freedom A} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}  \mbox{degrees of freedom B} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}  \mbox{degrees of freedom int} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\end{align}
$$
$\omega^2$ is a better estimate of the explained variance in the population than
$\eta^2$. Only for balanced designs (equal sample sizes).
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2_{partial}$:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_{partial\,A} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares A} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,B} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares B} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,int} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares int} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}
\end{align}
$$




ANOVA table
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.




Equivalent to
n.a.
n.a.
Equivalent to
Equivalent to
OLS regression with two categorical independent variables and the interaction term, transformed into $(I  1)$ + $(J  1)$ + $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ code variables.
When testing two sided: goodness of fit test, with a categorical variable with 2 levels.
When $N$ is large, the $p$ value from the $z$ test for a single proportion approaches the $p$ value from the binomial test for a single proportion. The $z$ test for a single proportion is just a large sample approximation of the binomial test for a single proportion.
Example context
Example context
Example context
Example context
Example context
Is the average mental health score different between people from a low, moderate, and high economic class? And is the average mental health score different between men and women? And is there an interaction effect between economic class and gender?
Is there a difference in depression level between measurement point 1 (preintervention), measurement point 2 (1 week postintervention), and measurement point 3 (6 weeks postintervention)?
Is the proportion of people with a low, moderate, and high social economic status in the population different from $\pi_{low} = 0.2,$ $\pi_{moderate} = 0.6,$ and $\pi_{high} = 0.2$?
Do people tend to score higher on mental health after a mindfulness course?
Is the proportion of smokers amongst office workers different from $\pi_0 = 0.2$? Use the normal approximation for the sampling distribution of the test statistic.
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
Analyze > General Linear Model > Univariate...
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factor(s)
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > K Related Samples...
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the white box below Test Variables
Put your categorical variable in the box below Test Variable List
Fill in the population proportions / probabilities according to $H_0$ in the box below Expected Values. If $H_0$ states that they are all equal, just pick 'All categories equal' (default)
Put your dichotomous variable in the box below Test Variable List
Fill in the value for $\pi_0$ in the box next to Test Proportion
If computation time allows, SPSS will give you the exact $p$ value based on the binomial distribution, rather than the approximate $p$ value based on the normal distribution
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
ANOVA > ANOVA
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factors
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the box below Measures
Frequencies > N Outcomes  $\chi^2$ Goodness of fit
Put your categorical variable in the box below Variable
Click on Expected Proportions and fill in the population proportions / probabilities according to $H_0$ in the boxes below Ratio. If $H_0$ states that they are all equal, you can leave the ratios equal to the default values (1)
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the sign test. However, you can do the Friedman test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this Friedman test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the sign test. Go to:
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the two paired variables in the box below Measures
Frequencies > 2 Outcomes  Binomial test
Put your dichotomous variable in the white box at the right
Fill in the value for $\pi_0$ in the box next to Test value
Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
Jamovi will give you the exact $p$ value based on the binomial distribution, rather than the approximate $p$ value based on the normal distribution