This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the right-hand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table
Two way ANOVA
Chi-squared test for the relationship between two categorical variables
Two categorical, the first with $I$ independent groups and the second with $J$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$, $J \geqslant 2$)
One categorical with $I$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$)
None
One within subject factor ($\geq 2$ related groups)
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
Dependent variable
Dependent /row variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One categorical with $J$ independent groups ($J \geqslant 2$)
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One categorical with 2 independent groups
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H0 for main and interaction effects together (model): no main effects and interaction effect
H0 for independent variable A: no main effect for A
H0 for independent variable B: no main effect for B
H0 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.
H0: there is no association between the row and column variable
More precisely, if there are $I$ independent random samples of size $n_i$ from each of $I$ populations, defined by the independent variable:
H0: the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in each of the $I$ populations
If there is one random sample of size $N$ from the total population:
H0: the row and column variables are independent
H0: $\mu = \mu_0$
Here $\mu$ is the population mean, and $\mu_0$ is the population mean according to the null hypothesis.
H0: $\pi_1 = \pi_2 = \ldots = \pi_I$
Here $\pi_1$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 1, $\pi_2$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 2, and $\pi_I$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group $I.$
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
H0: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H0: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H0: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
in the regression equation
$
\ln \big(\frac{\pi_{y = 1}}{1 - \pi_{y = 1}} \big) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times x_1 + \beta_2 \times x_2 + \ldots + \beta_K \times x_K
$. Here $ x_i$ represents independent variable $ i$, $\beta_i$ is the regression weight for independent variable $ x_i$, and $\pi_{y = 1}$ represents the true probability that the dependent variable $ y = 1$ (or equivalently, the proportion of $ y = 1$ in the population) given the scores on the independent variables.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H1 for main and interaction effects together (model): there is a main effect for A, and/or for B, and/or an interaction effect
H1 for independent variable A: there is a main effect for A
H1 for independent variable B: there is a main effect for B
H1 for the interaction term: there is an interaction effect between A and B
H1: there is an association between the row and column variable
More precisely, if there are $I$ independent random samples of size $n_i$ from each of $I$ populations, defined by the independent variable:
H1: the distribution of the dependent variable is not the same in all of the $I$ populations
If there is one random sample of size $N$ from the total population:
H1: the row and column variables are dependent
H1 two sided: $\mu \neq \mu_0$
H1 right sided: $\mu > \mu_0$
H1 left sided: $\mu < \mu_0$
H1: not all population proportions are equal
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
H1: not all population regression coefficients are 0
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$ (see 'Test statistic'), also one sided alternatives can be tested:
H1 right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H1 left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
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 size is large enough for $X^2$ to be approximately chi-squared distributed under the null hypothesis. Rule of thumb:
2 $\times$ 2 table: all four expected cell counts are 5 or more
Larger than 2 $\times$ 2 tables: average of the expected cell counts is 5 or more, smallest expected cell count is 1 or more
There are $I$ independent simple random samples from each of $I$ populations defined by the independent variable, or there is one simple random sample from the total population
Scores are normally distributed in the population
Population standard deviation $\sigma$ is known
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
Sample of 'blocks' (usually the subjects) is a simple random sample from the population. That is, blocks are independent of one another
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the log odds $\ln (\frac{\pi_{y=1}}{1 - \pi_{y=1}})$ is linear
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
For main and interaction effects together (model):
Note: mean square error is also known as mean square residual or mean square within.
$X^2 = \sum{\frac{(\mbox{observed cell count} - \mbox{expected cell count})^2}{\mbox{expected cell count}}}$
Here for each cell, the expected cell count = $\dfrac{\mbox{row total} \times \mbox{column total}}{\mbox{total sample size}}$, the observed cell count is the observed sample count in that same cell, and the sum is over all $I \times J$ cells.
$z = \dfrac{\bar{y} - \mu_0}{\sigma / \sqrt{N}}$
Here $\bar{y}$ is the sample mean, $\mu_0$ is the population mean according to the null hypothesis, $\sigma$ is the population standard deviation, and $N$ is the sample size.
Here $k$ is the number of related groups (usually the number of repeated measurements), a group total is the sum of the scores in a group, a block total is the sum of the scores in a block (usually a subject), and the grand total is the sum of all the scores.
Before computing $Q$, first exclude blocks with equal scores in all $k$ groups.
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
$X^2 = D_{null} - D_K = \mbox{null deviance} - \mbox{model deviance} $
$D_{null}$, the null deviance, is conceptually similar to the total variance of the dependent variable in OLS regression analysis. $D_K$, the model deviance, is conceptually similar to the residual variance in OLS regression analysis.
Wald test for individual $\beta_k$:
The wald statistic can be defined in two ways:
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
SPSS uses the first definition.
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
$X^2 = D_{K-1} - D_K$
$D_{K-1}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is excluded from the model. $D_{K}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is included in the model.
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}
$
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For the Wald test:
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for the chi-squared tests. Wald can be interpret as $X^2$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for any $z$ test. Wald can be interpreted as $z$.
n.a.
n.a.
$C\%$ confidence interval for $\mu$
n.a.
Wald-type approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$
-
-
$\bar{y} \pm z^* \times \dfrac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}$
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).
$b_k \pm z^* \times SE_{b_k}$
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).
Effect size
n.a.
Effect size
n.a.
Goodness of fit measure $R^2_L$
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 $\eta^2_{partial}$:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_{partial\,A} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares A} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,B} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares B} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,int} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares int} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}
\end{align}
$$
-
Cohen's $d$:
Standardized difference between the sample mean and $\mu_0$:
$$d = \frac{\bar{y} - \mu_0}{\sigma}$$
Cohen's $d$ indicates how many standard deviations $\sigma$ the sample mean $\bar{y}$ is removed from $\mu_0.$
-
$R^2_L = \dfrac{D_{null} - D_K}{D_{null}}$
There are several other goodness of fit measures in logistic regression. In logistic regression, there is no single agreed upon measure of goodness of fit.
n.a.
n.a.
Visual representation
n.a.
n.a.
-
-
-
-
ANOVA table
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
-
-
-
-
Equivalent to
n.a.
n.a.
Equivalent to
n.a.
OLS regression with two categorical independent variables and the interaction term, transformed into $(I - 1)$ + $(J - 1)$ + $(I - 1) \times (J - 1)$ code variables.
-
-
Friedman test, with a categorical dependent variable consisting of two independent groups.
-
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 an association between economic class and gender? Is the distribution of economic class different between men and women?
Is the average mental health score of office workers different from $\mu_0 = 50$? Assume that the standard deviation of the mental health scores in the population is $\sigma = 3.$
Subjects perform three different tasks, which they can either perform correctly or incorrectly. Is there a difference in task performance between the three different tasks?
Can body mass index, stress level, and gender predict whether people get diagnosed with diabetes?
SPSS
SPSS
n.a.
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 > Descriptive Statistics > Crosstabs...
Put one of your two categorical variables in the box below Row(s), and the other categorical variable in the box below Column(s)
Click the Statistics... button, and click on the square in front of Chi-square
Continue and click OK
-
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
Under Test Type, select Cochran's Q test
Analyze > Regression > Binary Logistic...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Covariate(s)
Jamovi
Jamovi
n.a.
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
Frequencies > Independent Samples - $\chi^2$ test of association
Put one of your two categorical variables in the box below Rows, and the other categorical variable in the box below Columns
-
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the Cochran's Q test. However, you can do the Friedman test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this Friedman test is equivalent to the $p$ value that would have resulted from the Cochran's Q test. Go to:
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA - Friedman
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the box below Measures
Regression > 2 Outcomes - Binomial
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent variables of interval/ratio level in the box below Covariates
If you also have code (dummy) variables as independent variables, you can put these in the box below Covariates as well
Instead of transforming your categorical independent variable(s) into code variables, you can also put the untransformed categorical independent variables in the box below Factors. Jamovi will then make the code variables for you 'behind the scenes'
