This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons (max. of 3) 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
Friedman test
Binomial test for a single proportion
Regression (OLS)
You cannot compare more than 3 methods
Independent/grouping variable
Independent variable
Independent variables
One within subject factor ($\geq 2$ related groups)
None
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 variable
Dependent variable
One of ordinal level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
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}: $\pi = \pi_0$
Here $\pi$ is the population proportion of 'successes', and $\pi_0$ is the population proportion of successes according to the null hypothesis.
H_{0}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 = 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
in the regression equation
$
\mu_y = \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 $\mu_y$ represents the population mean of the dependent variable $ y$ given the scores on the independent variables.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
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} two sided: $\pi \neq \pi_0$
H_{1} right sided: $\pi > \pi_0$
H_{1} left sided: $\pi < \pi_0$
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
H_{1}: not all population regression coefficients are 0 or equivalenty
H_{1}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is larger than 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 > 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1} two sided: $\beta_k \neq 0$
H_{1} right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H_{1} left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Sample of 'blocks' (usually the subjects) is a simple random sample from the population. That is, blocks are independent of one another
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
In the population, the residuals are normally distributed at each combination of values of the independent variables
In the population, the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the residuals is the same for each combination of values of the independent variables (homoscedasticity)
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the mean of the dependent variable $\mu_y$ is linear. If this linearity assumption holds, the mean of the residuals is 0 for each combination of values of the independent variables
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.
$X$ = number of successes in the sample
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
F &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2 / K}{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  K  1)}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model} / \mbox{degrees of freedom model}}{\mbox{sum of squares error} / \mbox{degrees of freedom error}}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{mean square model}}{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
where $\hat{y}_j$ is the predicted score on the dependent variable $y$ of subject $j$, $\bar{y}$ is the mean of $y$, $y_j$ is the score on $y$ of subject $j$, $N$ is the total sample size, and $K$ is the number of independent variables.
$t$ test for individual $\beta_k$:
$t = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$ with $s$ the sample standard deviation of the residuals, $x_j$ the score of subject $j$ on the independent variable $x$, and $\bar{x}$ the mean of $x$. For models with more than one independent variable, computing $SE_{b_k}$ is more complicated.
Note 1: mean square model is also known as mean square regression, and mean square error is also known as mean square residual.
Note 2: if there is only one independent variable in the model ($K = 1$), the $F$ test for the complete regression model is equivalent to the two sided $t$ test for $\beta_1.$
n.a.
n.a.
Sample standard deviation of the residuals $s$


$\begin{aligned}
s &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2}{N  K  1}}\\ &= \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 $\alpha$
Two sided:
Check if $X$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $X$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $X$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $X$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $X$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $X$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$F$ test:
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 $\alpha$
$t$ Test two sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test right sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test left sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
n.a.
n.a.
$C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$ and for $\mu_y$, $C\%$ prediction interval for $y_{new}$


Confidence interval for $\beta_k$:
$b_k \pm t^* \times SE_{b_k}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Confidence interval for $\mu_y$, the population mean of $y$ given the values on the independent variables:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{\hat{y}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{\hat{y}} = s \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Prediction interval for $y_{new}$, the score on $y$ of a future respondent:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{y_{new}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{y_{new}} = s \sqrt{1 + \dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
In all formulas, the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N  K  1}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20).
n.a.
n.a.
Effect size


Complete model:
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the sample regression equation (the independent variables):
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2}{\sum (y_j  \bar{y})^2}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= 1  \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= r(y, \hat{y})^2
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample by the sample regression equation. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2$. If there is only one independent variable, $R^2 = r^2$: the correlation between the independent variable $x$ and dependent variable $y$ squared.
Wherry's $R^2$ / shrunken $R^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $R^2$ and is equal to
$$R^2_W = 1  \frac{N  1}{N  K  1}(1  R^2)$$
$R^2_W$ is a less biased estimate than $R^2$ of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2.$
Stein's $R^2$:
Estimates the proportion of variance in $y$ that we expect the current sample regression equation to explain in a different sample drawn from the same population. It is equal to
$$R^2_S = 1  \frac{(N  1)(N  2)(N + 1)}{(N  K  1)(N  K  2)(N)}(1  R^2)$$
Per independent variable:
Correlation squared $r^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is explained by the independent variable $x_k$, not corrected for the other independent variables in the model
Semipartial correlation squared $sr^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$, beyond the part that is already explained by the other independent variables in the model
Partial correlation squared $pr^2_k$: the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable $y$ not explained by the other independent variables, that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$
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 smokers amongst office workers different from $\pi_0 = 0.2$?
Can mental health be predicted from fysical health, economic class, and gender?
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
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 dichotomous variable in the box below Test Variable List
Fill in the value for $\pi_0$ in the box next to Test Proportion
Analyze > Regression > Linear...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Independent(s)
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups 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
Regression > Linear Regression
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'