Chapter 15

Analysis of Variance

15.1 Introduction
Analysis of variance compares two or more populations of interval data. Specifically, we are interested in determining whether differences exist between the population means. The procedure works by analyzing the sample variance.

15.2 One Way Analysis of Variance

The analysis of variance is a procedure that tests to determine whether differences exits between two or more population means. To do this, the technique analyzes the sample variances

One Way Analysis of Variance

Example 15.1
An apple juice manufacturer is planning to develop a new product -a liquid concentrate. The marketing manager has to decide how to market the new product. Three strategies are considered
Emphasize convenience of using the product. Emphasize the quality of the product. Emphasize the products low price.

One Way Analysis of Variance

Example 15.1 - continued
An experiment was conducted as follows:
In three cities an advertisement campaign was launched . In each city only one of the three characteristics (convenience, quality, and price) was emphasized. The weekly sales were recorded for twenty weeks following the beginning of the campaigns.

One Way Analysis of Variance

Con ce vn

Week ly sales

529 658 793 514 663 719 711 606 461 529 498 663 604 495 485 557 353 557 542 614

Qa u lity
804 630 774 717 679 604 620 697 706 615 492 719 787 699 572 523 584 634 580 624

Price
672 531 443 596 602 502 659 689 675 512 691 733 698 776 561 572 469 581 679 532

See file Xm15 -01

Wee kly sales

Weekl y sales

One Way Analysis of Variance

Solution
The data are interval The problem objective is to compare sales in three cities. We hypothesize that the three population means are equal

Defining the Hypotheses Solution

H0:
1

= 2=

H1: At least two means differ To build the statistic needed to test the hypotheses use the following notation:

Notation
1
X11 x21 . . . Second observation, Xn1,1 second sample n 1 First observation, first sample

endent samples are drawn from k populations (treat

2
X12 x22 . . . Xn2,2

k
X1k x2k . . . Xnk,k

x1
Sample size Sample mean

n2 x2

nk xk

X is the response variable. The variables value are called responses.

Terminology
In the context of this problem
Response variable weekly sales Responses actual sale values Experimental unit weeks in the three cities when we record sales figures. Factor the criterion by which we classify the populations (the treatments). In this problems the factor is the marketing strategy. Factor levels the population (treatment) names. In this problem factor levels are the marketing trategies.

The rationale of the test statistic

Two types of variability are employed when testing for the equality of the population means

Graphical demonstration: Employing two types of variability

30

25

x3 = 20
20

x2 = 15
16 15 14 11 10 9

20 19

x3 = 20

x2 = 15 x1 = 10
12 10 9 7

x1 = 10

A small variability within The sample means are the same as before 1 the samples makes it easier the larger within-sample variability but Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment Treatment 1 3 TreatmentTreatment 3 2 to draw a conclusion about the it harder to draw a conclusion makes population means. about the population means.

The rationale behind the test statistic I

If the null hypothesis is true, we would expect all the sample means to be close to one another (and as a result, close to the grand mean). If the alternative hypothesis is true, at least some of the sample means would differ. Thus, we measure variability between sample means.

Variability between sample means

The variability between the sample means is measured as the sum of squared distances between each mean and the grand mean. This sum is called the Sum of Squares for Treatments SST

In our example treatments are represented by the different advertising strategies.

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

SST= nj (xj x)
j=1

There are k treatments The size of sample The mean of sample j j Note: When the sample means are close to one another, their distance from the grand mean is small, leading to a small SST. Thus, large SST indicates large variation between sample means, which supports H1.

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

Solution continued Calculate SST
x1 = 577.55x2 = 653 x3 = 608 .00 .65 SST = nj (xj x)2
20(577.55 - 613.07)2 + n1x1 + n2x2 + ...+ nkxk + 20(653.00 - 613.07)2 + X= + 20(608.65 - 613.07)2 = n1 + n2 + ...+ nk = 57,512.23
j=1 k

he grand mean is calculated by =

Sum of squares for treatments (SST)

Is SST = 57,512.23 large enough to reject H0 in favor of H1? See next.

The rationale behind test statistic II

Large variability within the samples weakens the ability of the sample means to represent their corresponding population means. Therefore, even though sample means may markedly differ from one another, SST must be judged relative to the within samples variability.

Within samples variability

The variability within samples is measured by adding all the squared distances between observations and their sample means.

m of all squared differences tween sales in city j and the mple mean of city j (over all e three cities).

This sum is called the Sum of Squares for Error our example this is the SSE

Sum of squares for errors (SSE)

Solution continued Calculate SSE

2 2 2 s1 = 10,775.00 s 2 = 7,238,11 s3 = 8,670.24

SSE = (xij x j ) 2 j =1 = + -1)s2i2 1 (n3 -1)s32

nj

= (n1 - 1)s12 + (n2

= (20 -1)10,774.44 + (20 -1)7,238.61+ (20-1)8,670.24 = 506,983.50

Sum of squares for errors (SSE)

Is SST = 57,512.23 large enough relative to SSE = 506,983.50 to reject the null hypothesis that specifies that all the means are equal?

The mean sum of squares

To perform the test we need to calculate the mean squares as follows:
Calculation of MST Mean Square for SST Treatments

Calculation of MSE
Mean Square for Error

M ST =

k 1 57 ,512 .23 = 3 1 = 28 ,756 .12

MSE =

SSE nk 509,983.50 = 60 3 = 8,894.45

Calculation of the test statistic

MST F= MSE 28 ,756 .12 = 8,894 .45 = 3.23

Required Conditions: 1. The populations tested are normally distributed. with 2. The variances of all the the following degrees of freedom: populations tested arev1=k -1 and v2=n-k equal.

The F test rejection region

And finally the hypothesis test:

H0: 1 = 2 = = k H1: At least two means differ

MST Test statistic: F= MSE

R.R: F>F ,k-1,n-k

The F test
H o: 1 = 2 = 3 H1: At least two means differ
MT S F= ME S 2 ,7 6 1 8 5 . 2 = 88 4 1 , 9 . 7 =3 2 . 3

R.R.: F > Fstatistic0531,60MST/ MSE= Test ,k1,n k = F0. F= 3 3.15 ,

3.23 3.23 > 3.15, there is sufficient Since

evidence to reject Ho in favor of H1, and argue that at least one of the mean sales is different than the

The F test p- value

Use Excel to find the p-value
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 0 1 2 3

fx Statistical = .0467

FDIST(3.23,2,57)

p Value = P(F>3.23) = .0467

4

Excel single factor ANOVA

Xm15-01.xls
Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Convenience Quality Price

Count 20 20 20

Sum Average Variance 11551 577.55 10775.00 13060 653.00 7238.11 12173 608.65 8670.24

ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

SS 57512 506984 564496

df 2 57 59

MS 28756 8894

P-value 3.23 0.0468

F crit 3.16

SS(Total) = SST + SSE

15.3 Analysis of Variance Experimental Designs

Several elements may distinguish between one experimental design and others.
The number of factors.
Each characteristic investigated is called a factor. Each factor has several levels.

Two - way ANOVA Two factors

Response

One - way ANOVA Single factor

Response

Treatment 3 (level 1) Treatment 2 (level 2) Treatment 1 (level 3)

Level2

Factor B

Level 1

Level 3 Level2 Level 1 Factor

Independent samples or blocks

Groups of matched observations are formed into blocks, in order to remove the effects of unwanted variability. By doing so we improve the chances of detecting the variability of interest.

Models of Fixed and Random Effects

Fixed effects
If all possible levels of a factor are included in our analysis we have a fixed effect ANOVA. The conclusion of a fixed effect ANOVA applies only to the levels studied.

Random effects
If the levels included in our analysis represent a random sample of all the possible levels, we have a randomeffect ANOVA. The conclusion of the random-effect ANOVA applies to all the levels (not only those studied).

Models of Fixed and Random Effects.

In some ANOVA models the test statistic of the fixed effects case may differ from the test statistic of the random effect case. Fixed and random effects - examples
Fixed effects - The advertisement Example (15.1): All the levels of the marketing strategies were included Random effects - To determine if there is a difference in the production rate of 50 machines, four machines are randomly selected and there production recorded.

15.4 Randomized Blocks (Two-way) Analysis of Variance

The purpose of designing a randomized block experiment is to reduce the within-treatments variation thus increasing the relative amount of between treatment variation. This helps in detecting differences between the treatment means more easily.

Randomized Blocks
Block all the observations with some commonality across treatments

Treatment 4 Treatment 3 Treatment 2 Treatment 1

Block3

Block2

Block 1

Randomized Blocks
Block all the observations with some commonality across treatments
Treatment Block
1 2 . . . b 1 2 k Block mean X11 X12 . . . X1k X21 X22 X2k

x[B] 1

x[B]2

Xb1 Xb2

Xbk

Treatment mean

x[T] x[T]2 1

x[T]k

x[B]b

Recall. The sum of square total is partitioned For the independent into three sources of variation

Partitioning the total variability

Treatments Blocks Within samples (Error)

samples design we have:

SS(Total) = SST + SSE

SS(Total) = SST + SSB + SSE SS(Total) = SST + SSB + SSE

Sum of square for treatments of square for blocks of square for error Sum Sum

Calculating the sums of squares

Formulai for the calculation of the sums of squares
Treatment Block
1 2 . . . b SS (Total ) 1 2 k Block mean X11 X12 . . . X1k X21 X22 X2k

SSB=
2

k(x[B] ) X + 1 x[B] 1 2 x[B]2 k(x[B] ) X + + 2 Xb1 Xb2 Xbk = ( x11 X ) 2 + ( x21 X ) 2 + ... + ( x12 X ) 2 + ( x22 X ) 2 Treatment mean
... + ( X 1k X ) 2 + ( x2 k X ) 2 + ... =

x[T] x[T]2 1

x[T]k
2

x
2

k(x[B] ) X k

SST

= b(x[T]1) X + b(x[T]2) X + ...+ b(x[T]k ) X

Calculating the sums of squares

Formula for the calculation of the sums of squares
Treatment Block
1 2 . 1 2 2 . xX) SSE= (x11 x[T]1 x[B]1 + X) + (x21 x[T]1 x[B]2 + [B]2+ ... . b Xb1 Xb2 Xbk 2 2 1 2 k Block mean X11 X12 . . . X1k X21 X22 X2k

SSB=
x[B]
k(x[B] ) X + 1 2 k(x[B] ) X + 2 k(x[B] ) X k
2 2 2

12 Treatment mean

(x x[T]2 x[B]1 + X) + (x22 x[T]2 x[B]2 + X) + ... (x1k x[T]k x[B]1 + X)2 + (x2k x[T]k x[B]2 + X)2 + ...

x[T] x[T]2 1

x[T]k
2

SST

= b(x[T]1) X + b(x[T]2) X + ...+ b(x[T]k ) X

Mean Squares
To perform hypothesis tests for treatments and blocks we need Mean square for treatments Mean square for blocks Mean square for error = SST MST k 1
SSB MSB= b 1

SSE M = SE nkb+1

Test statistics for the randomized block design ANOVA

Test statistic for treatments

MST F= MSE
Test statistic for blocks

MSB F= MSE

The F test rejection regions

Testing the mean responses for treatments

F > F ,k-1,n-k-b+ 1
Testing the mean response for blocks

F> F ,b-1,n-k-b+ 1

Randomized Blocks ANOVA Example

Example 15.2
Are there differences in the effectiveness of cholesterol reduction drugs? To answer this question the following experiment was organized:
25 groups of men with high cholesterol were matched by age and weight. Each group consisted of 4 men. Each person in a group received a different drug. The cholesterol level reduction in two months was recorded.

Can we infer from the data in Xm15-02 that there are differences in mean cholesterol reduction among the four drugs?

Randomized Blocks ANOVA Example

Solution
Each drug can be considered a treatment. Each 4 records (per group) can be blocked, because they are matched by age and weight. This procedure eliminates the variability in cholesterol reduction related to different combinations of age and weight. This helps detect differences in the mean cholesterol reduction attributed to the different drugs.

Randomized Blocks ANOVA Example

ANOVA Source of Variation Rows Columns Error Total SS 3848.7 196.0 1142.6 5187.2 df 24 3 72 99 MS 160.36 65.32 15.87 F P-value 10.11 0.0000 4.12 0.0094 F crit 1.67 2.73

Treatments

Block b-1 K-1MST / MSE MSB / MSE s

nclusion: At 5% significance level there is sufficient eviden nfer that the mean cholesterol reduction gained by at leas o drugs are different.

Chapter 15 continued of Analysis

Variance

15.5 Two-Factor Analysis of Variance Example 15.3

Suppose in Example 15.1, two factors are to be examined:
The effects of the marketing strategy on sales.
Emphasis on convenience Emphasis on quality Emphasis on price

The effects of the selected media on sales.

Advertise on TV Advertise in newspapers

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution
We may attempt to analyze combinations of levels, one from each factor using one-way ANOVA. The treatments will be:
Treatment 1: Emphasize convenience and advertise in TV Treatment 2: Emphasize convenience and advertise in newspapers . Treatment 6: Emphasize price and advertise in newspapers

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution The hypotheses tested are:
H0: 1= 2= 3= 4= 5=
6

H1: At least two means differ.

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solutio one of six cities sales are recorded In each nfor ten
weeks. In each city a different combination of marketing City1 City2 and City3 City4 City5 emphasisQuality media usage isCity6 employed. Convnce Convnce Quality Price Price
TV Paper TV Paper TV Paper

Attempting one-way ANOVA

Solution

City1 City6

City2

City3
Quality TV

City4 City5
Quality Price TV

Convnce Convnce Price TV Paper Paper

Xm15-03

Paper

The p-value =.0452. We conclude that there is evidence that differences exist in the mean weekly sales among the six cities.

Interesting questions no answers

These result raises some questions:
Are the differences in sales caused by the different marketing strategies? Are the differences in sales caused by the different media used for advertising? Are there combinations of marketing strategy and media that interact to affect the weekly sales?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

The current experimental design cannot provide answers to these questions. A new experimental design is needed.

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor A: Marketing strategy Convenience Quality Price

Factor B: Advertising media

TV

City 1 sales

City3 sales City 4 sales

City 5 sales City 6 sales

City 2 Newspapers sales

Are there differences in the mean sales caused by different marketing strategies?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Test whether mean sales of Convenience, Quality, and Price significantly differ from one another. H0: = =

Cn. ov

Qa u lity

P e ric

H1: At least two means differ

Calculations are based on the sum of square for factor A SS(A)

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor A: Marketing strategy Convenience Quality Price City 5 sales City 6 sales

Factor B: Advertising media

TV

City 1 sales

City 3 sales City 4 sales

City 2 Newspapers sales

Are there differences in the mean sales caused by different advertising media?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

st whether mean sales of the TV, and Newspaper nificantly differ from one another. H0: TV = Newspapers H1: The means differ
Calculations are based on the sum of square for factor B SS(B)

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Factor B: Advertising media
Factor A: Marketing strategy Convenience Quality Price TV City 1 sales City 3 sales City 4 sales City 5 sales City 6 sales

City 2 Newspapers sales

Are there differences in the mean sales caused by interaction between marketing strategy and advertising medium?

Two-way ANOVA (two factors)

Test whether mean sales of certain cells are different than the level expected.
Calculation are based on the sum of square for SS(AB) interaction

Graphical description of the possible Graphical description of the possible relationships between factors A and B. relationships between factors A and B.

Difference between the levels of factor A, and between the levels of factor A Difference difference between the levels of factordifference between the levels of facto No B; no interaction M R Level 1 of factor BM R Level 1and 2 of factor B e e e e s s a p a p Level 2 of factor Bn o n o n n s s e e Levels of factor A Levels of factor A 1 2 3 1 R e A. s p o n s e 1 2 Interaction 3 M M R e No e edifference between the levels of factor s a Difference between the levels of factor B a p n n o n s e Levels of factor A 1 2 3

Levels of factor A 3

Sums of squares
SS(A) = rb SS(B) = ra

i=1 b j=1

(x[A]i x)2

(10(2){(xconv. x) 2 + ( xquality x) 2 + ( x price x) 2 }

(x[B]j x)2
b

(10 )(3){( xTV x) 2 + ( x Newspaper x ) 2 }

SS(AB = r )
i=1

(x[ABij x[A]i x[B]j + x)2 ]

j=1

SSE =

i =1 j =1 k =1

( xijk x[ AB ]ij ) 2

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Test for the difference between the levels of the main factors A and B
SS(A)/(a-1) SS(B)/(b-1) SSE/(n-ab)

MS(B) MS(A) F= F= MSE MSE Rejection region: F > F ,a-1,n-ab > F , b-1, n-ab
Test for interaction between factors A and B

MS(AB) SS(AB)/(a-1)(b-1) F= MSE Rejection region: F > F,( a1 -1 -a )(b ),n b

Required conditions:
1. The response distributions is normal 2. The treatment variances are equal. 3. The samples are independent.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued( Xm15-03)
Conve nce nie T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V T V Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Ne spa r w pe Q lit ua y Price

491 712 558 447 479 624 546 444 582 672 464 559 759 557 528 670 534 657 557 474

677 627 590 632 683 760 690 548 579 644 689 650 704 652 576 836 628 798 497 841

575 614 706 484 478 650 583 536 579 795 803 584 525 498 812 565 708 546 616 587

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the three marketing strategies
H0:
conv.

quality

price

H1: At least two mean sales are different

ANOVA Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total SS 13172.0 98838.6 1609.6 501136.7 614757.0 df 1 2 2 54 59 MS 13172.0 49419.3 804.8 9280.3 F 1.42 5.33 0.09 P-value 0.2387 0.0077 0.9171 F crit 4.02 3.17 3.17

Factor A Marketing strategies

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the three marketing strategies
H0:
c n. ov

qa u lity

p e ric

H1: At least two mean sales are different F = MS(Marketing strategy)/MSE = 5.33 Fcritical = F ,a-1,n-ab = F.05,3-1,60-(3)(2)

MS(A)/MSE

= 3.17; (p-value = .0077)

At 5% significance level there is evidence to infer that differences in weekly sales exist among the marketing strategies.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the two advertising media
H0: TV. = Nespaper H1: The two mean sales differ
ANOVA Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total

SS 13172.0 98838.6 1609.6 501136.7 614757.0

df 1 2 2 54 59

MS 13172.0 49419.3 804.8 9280.3

F 1.42 5.33 0.09

P-value 0.2387 0.0077 0.9171

F crit 4.02 3.17 3.17

Factor B = Advertising media

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test of the difference in mean sales between the two advertising media
H0:
T. V

Ns a e ep p r

H1: The two mean sales differ F = MS(Media)/MSE = 1.42 Fcritical = F, a-1,n-ab = F.05,2-1,60-(3)(2)

MS(B)/MSE
= 4.02 (p-value = .2387)

At 5% significance level there is insufficient evidence to infer that differences in weekly sales exist between the two advertising media.

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test for interaction between factors A and B
H0:
T *ov Vc n .

T * u lity Vq a

==

n wp p e e s .* ric

H1: At least two means differ

ANOVA Source of Variation SS Sample 13172.0 Columns 98838.6 Interaction 1609.6 W ithin 501136.7 Total 614757.0 df 1 2 2 54 59 MS 13172.0 49419.3 804.8 9280.3 F P-value 1.42 0.2387 5.33 0.0077 0.09 0.9171 F crit 4.02 3.17 3.17

Interaction AB = Marketing*Media

F tests for the Two-way ANOVA

Example 15.3 - continued
Test for interaction between factor A and B
H 0:
TV*conv.

TV*quality

==

newsp.*price

H1: At least two means differ

MS(AB)/MSE

F = MS(Marketing*Media)/MSE = .09 Fcritical = F ,(a-1)(b-1),n-ab = F.05,(3-1)(2-1),60-(3)(2) = 3.17 (p-value= .9171)

At 5% significance level there is insufficient evidence to infer that the two factors interact to affect the mean weekly sales.

15.7 Multiple Comparisons

When the null hypothesis is rejected, it may be desirable to find which mean(s) is (are) different, and at what ranking order. Three statistical inference procedures, geared at doing this, are presented:
Fishers least significant difference (LSD) method Bonferroni adjustment Tukeys multiple comparison method

 Two means are considered different if the difference between the corresponding sample means is larger than a critical number. Then, the larger sample mean is believed to be associated with a larger population mean. Conditions common to all the methods here:
The ANOVA model is the one way analysis of variance The conditions required to perform the ANOVA are satisfied. The experiment is fixed-effect

15.7 Multiple Comparisons

 This method builds on the equal variances t-test of the difference between two means. 2 The test statistic is improved by using MSE rather than sp . We can conclude that i and j differ (at % significance level if | i - j| > LSD, where

Fisher Least Significant Different (LSD) Method

1 1 LSD= t 2 MSE + ) ( ni nj df. = n k .

Experimentwise Type I error rate ( E) (the effective Type I error)

The Fishers method may result in an increased probability of committing a type I error. The experimentwise Type I error rate is the probability of committing at least one Type I error at significance level of . It is calculated by E = 1-(1 )C where C is the number of pairwise comparisons (I.e. C = k(k-1)/2 The Bonferroni adjustment determines the required Type I error probability per pairwise comparison ( ) , to secure a pre-determined overall E.

Bonferroni Adjustment
The procedure:
Compute the number of pairwise comparisons (C) [C=k(k-1)/2], where k is the number of populations. Set = E/C, where E is the true probability of making at least one Type I error (called experimentwise Type I error). We can conclude that i and j differ (at /C% significance level if

i j > t (2C) df. = n k .

1 1 MSE + ) ( ni nj

Fisher and Bonferroni Methods

Example 15.1 - continued Rank the effectiveness of the marketing strategies (based on mean weekly sales). Use the Fishers method, and the Bonferroni adjustment method Solution (the Fishers method) The sample mean sales were 577.55, 653.0, 608.65.577 653 = 7545 x1 x2 = .55 .0 . 1 1 t 2 MSE + ) = ( Then, ni nj x1 x3 = 577 608 = 3110 .55 .65 .
(1 ) ) . x2 x3 = 653 608 = 4435 t.05/2 8894/20 + (1/20 5971 .0 .65 .

Fisher and Bonferroni Methods

Solution (the Bonferroni adjustment)
We calculate C=k(k-1)/2 to be 3(2)/2 = 3. We set = .05/3 = .0167, thus t.0167 /2, 60-3 = 2.467 (Excel).

x1 x2 = 577 653 = 7545 .55 .0 .

1 1 t 2 MSE + ) = ( ni nj x1 x3 = 577 608 = 3110 .55 .65 .

x2 x3 = 653 608 = 4435 2 467 8894/20 + (1/20 = 7354 .0 .65 . . (1 ) ) .
Again, the significant difference is between
1

and 2.

Tukey Multiple Comparisons The test procedure:

Find a critical number follows: as

MSE = q (k, ) ng

k = the number of samples =degrees of freedom = n - k ng = number of observations per sample (recall, all the sample sizes are the same) = significance level q (k, ) = a critical value obtained from the studentized range table

Tukey Multiple Comparisons

Select a pair of means. Calculate the difference between the larger and the smaller mean.

xmax xmin

If xmax xmin> there is sufficient evidence to conclude that max > min .
Repeat this procedure for each pair of samples. Rank the means if possible.

he sample sizes are not extremely different, we can use the k ng = ove procedure with ng calculated as the harmonic mean of 1 n +1 n2 +... 1 nk + 1 e sample sizes.

Tukey Multiple Comparisons

Example 15.1 - continued We had three populations (three marketing strategies). K = 3,
Sample sizes were equal. n1 = n2 = n3 = 20, = n-k = 60-3 = 57, MSE = 8894.
Take q.05 (3,60) from the table.

MSE 8894 = q (k, ) = q.05(3,57 ) = 7170 . ng 20

PopulationMean

xmax xmin

xmax xmin>

Sales - City 1 City 1 vs. City 2: 653 - 577.55 = 75.45 577.55 Sales - City 2 City 1 vs. City 3: 608.65 - 577.55 = 31.1 653 Sales - City 3 City 2 vs. City 3: 653 - 608.65 = 44.35 698.65

Excel Tukey and Fisher LSD method

Xm15-01
Fishers LDS = .05
Multiple Comparisons LSD Omega Treatment Treatment Difference Alpha = 0.05 Alpha = 0.05 Convenience Quality -75.45 59.72 71.70 Price -31.1 59.72 71.70 Quality Price 44.35 59.72 71.70

= Bonferroni adjustments.05/3 = .0167

M u lti p le C o m p a riso n s LS D O m ega Tre a tm e n t Tre a tm e nD iffe re n c A lp h a = 0 .0 1 A7 h a = 0 . 0 5 t e 6 lp C o n ve n ie n c eQ u a lity -7 5 . 4 5 7 3 .5 4 7 1 .7 0 P ric e -3 1 .1 7 3 .5 4 7 1 .7 0 Q u a lity P ric e 4 4 .3 5 7 3 .5 4 7 1 .7 0