IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0121412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unbalanced 2 x 2 Factorial Designs and the Interaction Effect: A Troublesome Combination

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes A Landsheer
  • Godfried van den Wittenboer

Abstract

In this power study, ANOVAs of unbalanced and balanced 2 x 2 datasets are compared (N = 120). Datasets are created under the assumption that H1 of the effects is true. The effects are constructed in two ways, assuming: 1. contributions to the effects solely in the treatment groups; 2. contrasting contributions in treatment and control groups. The main question is whether the two ANOVA correction methods for imbalance (applying Sums of Squares Type II or III; SS II or SS III) offer satisfactory power in the presence of an interaction. Overall, SS II showed higher power, but results varied strongly. When compared to a balanced dataset, for some unbalanced datasets the rejection rate of H0 of main effects was undesirably higher. SS III showed consistently somewhat lower power. When the effects were constructed with equal contributions from control and treatment groups, the interaction could be re-estimated satisfactorily. When an interaction was present, SS III led consistently to somewhat lower rejection rates of H0 of main effects, compared to the rejection rates found in equivalent balanced datasets, while SS II produced strongly varying results. In data constructed with only effects in the treatment groups and no effects in the control groups, the H0 of moderate and strong interaction effects was often not rejected and SS II seemed applicable. Even then, SS III provided slightly better results when a true interaction was present. ANOVA allowed not always for a satisfactory re-estimation of the unique interaction effect. Yet, SS II worked better only when an interaction effect could be excluded, whereas SS III results were just marginally worse in that case. Overall, SS III provided consistently 1 to 5% lower rejection rates of H0 in comparison with analyses of balanced datasets, while results of SS II varied too widely for general application.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes A Landsheer & Godfried van den Wittenboer, 2015. "Unbalanced 2 x 2 Factorial Designs and the Interaction Effect: A Troublesome Combination," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121412
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0121412
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121412
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121412&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0121412?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emanuele Borgonovo & Elmar Plischke & Giovanni Rabitti, 2022. "Interactions and computer experiments," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 49(3), pages 1274-1303, September.
    2. Ricardo Ramírez-Tapia & Armando Javier Ríos-Lira & Yaquelin Verenice Pantoja-Pacheco & José Antonio Vázquez-López & Edgar Augusto Ruelas-Santoyo, 2022. "Quantitative Analysis of the Balance Property in Factorial Experimental Designs 2 4 to 2 8," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0121412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.