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
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
One categorical with $I$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$)
Two categorical, the first with $I$ independent groups and the second with $J$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$, $J \geqslant 2$)
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One of ordinal level
One of ordinal level
One categorical with $J$ independent groups ($J \geqslant 2$)
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One of ordinal level
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
H_{0}: $m = m_0$
Here $m$ is the population median, and $m_0$ is the population median according to the null hypothesis.
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in both populations:
H_{0}: the population median for group 1 is equal to the population median for group 2
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{0}: the population scores in group 1 are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in group 2
Formulation 2:
H_{0}:
P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) = P(an observation from population 2 exceeds observation from population 1)
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}: 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.
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in all $I$ populations:
H_{0}: the population medians for the $I$ groups are equal
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{0}: the population scores in any of the $I$ groups are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in any of the other groups
Formulation 2:
H_{0}:
P(an observation from population $g$ exceeds an observation from population $h$) = P(an observation from population $h$ exceeds an observation from population $g$), for each pair of groups.
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.
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.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
H_{1} two sided: $m \neq m_0$
H_{1} right sided: $m > m_0$
H_{1} left sided: $m < m_0$
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in both populations:
H_{1} two sided: the population median for group 1 is not equal to the population median for group 2
H_{1} right sided: the population median for group 1 is larger than the population median for group 2
H_{1} left sided: the population median for group 1 is smaller than the population median for group 2
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{1} two sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in group 2
H_{1} right sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically higher than the population scores in group 2
H_{1} left sided: the population scores in group 1 are systematically lower than the population scores in group 2
Formulation 2:
H_{1} two sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) $\neq$ P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
H_{1} right sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) > P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
H_{1} left sided: P(an observation from population 1 exceeds an observation from population 2) < P(an observation from population 2 exceeds an observation from population 1)
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
$F$ 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: $\beta_k < 0$
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in all $I$ populations:
H_{1}: not all of the population medians for the $I$ groups are equal
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{1}:
the poplation scores in some groups are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in other groups
Formulation 2:
H_{1}:
for at least one pair of groups:
P(an observation from population $g$ exceeds an observation from population $h$) $\neq$ P(an observation from population $h$ exceeds an observation from population $g$)
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
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
The population distribution of the scores is symmetric
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2. That is, within and between groups, observations 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
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
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2, $\ldots$, group $I$ sample is an independent SRS from population $I$. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
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)
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Two different types of test statistics can be used, but both will result in the same test outcome. We will denote the first option the $W_1$ statistic (also known as the $T$ statistic), and the second option the $W_2$ statistic.
In order to compute each of the test statistics, follow the steps below:
For each subject, compute the sign of the difference score $\mbox{sign}_d = \mbox{sgn}(\mbox{score}  m_0)$. The sign is 1 if the difference is larger than zero, 1 if the diffence is smaller than zero, and 0 if the difference is equal to zero.
For each subject, compute the absolute value of the difference score $\mbox{score}  m_0$.
Exclude subjects with a difference score of zero. This leaves us with a remaining number of difference scores equal to $N_r$.
Assign ranks $R_d$ to the $N_r$ remaining absolute difference scores. The smallest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of 1, and the largest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of $N_r$. If there are ties, assign them the average of the ranks they occupy.
Then compute the test statistic:
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$
or
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$
That is, sum all ranks corresponding to a positive difference or sum all ranks corresponding to a negative difference. Theoratically, both definitions will result in the same test outcome. However:
Tables with critical values for $W_1$ are usually based on the smaller of $\sum\, R_d^{+}$ and $\sum\, R_d^{}$. So if you are using such a table, pick the smaller one.
If you are using the normal approximation to find the $p$ value, it makes things most straightforward if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$ (if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$, the right and left sided alternative hypotheses 'flip').
$W_2 = \sum\, \mbox{sign}_d \times R_d$
That is, for each remaining difference score, multiply the rank of the absolute difference score by the sign of the difference score, and then sum all of the products.
Two different types of test statistics can be used; both will result in the same test outcome. The first is the Wilcoxon rank sum statistic $W$:
The second type of test statistic is the MannWhitney $U$ statistic:
$U = W  \dfrac{n_1(n_1 + 1)}{2}$
where $n_1$ is the sample size of group 1.
Note: we could just as well base W and U on group 2. This would only 'flip' the right and left sided alternative hypotheses. Also, tables with critical values for $U$ are often based on the smaller of $U$ for group 1 and for group 2.
$X^2 = \sum{\frac{(\mbox{observed cell count}  \mbox{expected cell count})^2}{\mbox{expected cell count}}}$
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.
$F$ 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 $\beta_1.$
Here $N$ is the total sample size, $R_i$ is the sum of ranks in group $i$, and $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$. Remember that multiplication precedes addition, so first compute $\frac{12}{N (N + 1)} \times \sum \frac{R^2_i}{n_i}$ and then subtract $3(N + 1)$.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for $H$ is more complicated.
For main and interaction effects together (model):
Sampling distribution of $W_1$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_1$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_{W_1}$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_1}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\mu_{W_1} = \frac{N_r(N_r + 1)}{4}$$
$$\sigma_{W_1} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{24}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_1  \mu_{W_1}}{\sigma_{W_1}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
Sampling distribution of $W_2$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_2$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_2}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\sigma_{W_2} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{6}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_2}{\sigma_{W_2}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
If $N_r$ is small, the exact distribution of $W_1$ or $W_2$ should be used.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for the standard deviations $\sigma_{W_1}$ and $\sigma_{W_2}$ is more complicated.
Sampling distribution of $W$:
For large samples, $W$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_W$ and standard deviation $\sigma_W$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$
\begin{aligned}
\mu_W &= \dfrac{n_1(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{2}\\
\sigma_W &= \sqrt{\dfrac{n_1 n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{12}}
\end{aligned}
$$
Hence, for large samples, the standardized test statistic
$$
z_W = \dfrac{W  \mu_W}{\sigma_W}\\
$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true. Note that if your $W$ value is based on group 2, $\mu_W$ becomes $\frac{n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{2}$.
Sampling distribution of $U$:
For large samples, $U$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_U$ and standard deviation $\sigma_U$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$
\begin{aligned}
\mu_U &= \dfrac{n_1 n_2}{2}\\
\sigma_U &= \sqrt{\dfrac{n_1 n_2(n_1 + n_2 + 1)}{12}}
\end{aligned}
$$
Hence, for large samples, the standardized test statistic
$$
z_U = \dfrac{U  \mu_U}{\sigma_U}\\
$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
For small samples, the exact distribution of $W$ or $U$ should be used.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for the standard deviations $\sigma_W$ and $\sigma_U$ is more complicated.
Approximately the chisquared distribution with $J  1$ degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $F$:
$F$ distribution with $K$ (df model, numerator) and $N  K  1$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
$t$ distribution with $N  K  1$ (df error) degrees of freedom
For large samples, approximately the chisquared distribution with $I  1$ degrees of freedom.
For small samples, the exact distribution of $H$ should be used.
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.
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
For large samples, 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 $\alpha$
For large samples, 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 $\alpha$
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
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 $\alpha$
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
$C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$ and for $\mu_y$, $C\%$ prediction interval for $y_{new}$
n.a.
n.a.



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.
n.a.
Effect size
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 $x_k$

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 $\eta^2_{partial}$:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_{partial\,A} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares A} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,B} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares B} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,int} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares int} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}
\end{align}
$$
If there are no ties in the data, the two sided MannWhitneyWilcoxon test is equivalent to the KruskalWallis test with an independent variable with 2 levels ($I$ = 2).



OLS regression with two categorical independent variables and the interaction term, transformed into $(I  1)$ + $(J  1)$ + $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ code variables.
Example context
Example context
Example context
Example context
Example context
Example context
Is the median mental health score of office workers different from $m_0 = 50$?
Do men tend to score higher on social economic status than women?
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 $\pi_{high} = 0.2$?
Can mental health be predicted from fysical health, economic class, and gender?
Do people from different religions tend to score differently on social economic status?
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?
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
Specify the measurement level of your variable on the Variable View tab, in the column named Measure. Then go to:
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > One Sample...
On the Objective tab, choose Customize Analysis
On the Fields tab, specify the variable for which you want to compute the Wilcoxon signedrank test
On the Settings tab, choose Customize tests and check the box for 'Compare median to hypothesized (Wilcoxon signedrank test)'. Fill in your $m_0$ in the box next to Hypothesized median
Click Run
Double click on the output table to see the full results
Put your dependent variable in the box below Test Variable List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Click on the Define Groups... button. If you can't click on it, first click on the grouping variable so its background turns yellow
Fill in the value you have used to indicate your first group in the box next to Group 1, and the value you have used to indicate your second group in the box next to Group 2
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)
Analyze > Regression > Linear...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Independent(s)
Put your dependent variable in the box below Test Variable List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Click on the Define Range... button. If you can't click on it, first click on the grouping variable so its background turns yellow
Fill in the smallest value you have used to indicate your groups in the box next to Minimum, and the largest value you have used to indicate your groups in the box next to Maximum
Continue and click OK
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)
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
TTests > One Sample TTest
Put your variable in the box below Dependent Variables
Under Tests, select Wilcoxon rank
Under Hypothesis, fill in the value for $m_0$ in the box next to Test Value, and select your alternative hypothesis
TTests > Independent Samples TTest
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variables and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Under Tests, select MannWhitney U
Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
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)
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'
ANOVA > One Way ANOVA  KruskalWallis
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variables and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
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