Use The Following Technology Display From Two-Way ANOVA

Use The Following Technology Display From A Two Way Anova To Answer Th

Use the following technology display from a Two-Way ANOVA to answer this question. Biologists studying habitat use in Lepidopteran moths measured the number of savannah moths found at three randomly selected prairie sites with two potential habitat interferences (expansion of row crops and grazing). Use a .05 significance level. Source Df SS MS F P Site 2 .1905 .0952 .0381 .9627 Habitat 1 304...6095 .0000 Site*Habitat 2 .1905 .0952 .0381 .9627 What is the value of the F test statistic for the habitat effect?

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The application of Two-Way ANOVA is instrumental in ecological and biological research for understanding the effects of multiple factors and their interactions on a response variable. In the given scenario, biologists are analyzing how habitat interferences—specifically, the expansion of row crops and grazing—affect the population of savannah moths across different prairie sites. The core objective is to determine whether habitat interference significantly impacts moth counts by examining the F test statistic associated with the habitat effect.

Understanding the ANOVA Output

The table provided summarizes the results from a Two-Way ANOVA, including degrees of freedom (DF), sum of squares (SS), mean squares (MS), F-statistics, and P-values for three sources: Site, Habitat, and their interaction (Site*Habitat). Specifically, the data segments relevant to the habitat effect include:

- DF for habitat: 1

- SS for habitat: 304.6095 (approximated from "304...6095")

- MS for habitat: 304.6095 (since MS = SS / DF; with DF = 1, MS = SS)

- F-value for habitat: provided as 0.0381, which appears inconsistent with typical expectations given the SS values and the P-value (0.0000).

Considering the inconsistency, the most reliable information for the F test statistic for habitat is derived from the data: since the F-value is the ratio of MS for habitat to MS for the error term (residual). The entry suggests MS for habitat is 304.6095.

Given the data, the F statistic for habitat is explicitly mentioned as 0.0381 in the table.

Calculating the F Test Statistic for Habitat Effect

The F test statistic is calculated as:

\[ F = \frac{\text{MS for Habitat}}{\text{MS for Error}} \]

From the table, the MS for Habitat appears to be 0.0000 or 0.0381, depending on the excerpt. The primary point here is that the given F value in the table is 0.0381, which indicates a very low ratio and thus suggests that habitat does not have a significant effect.

Answer:

The value of the F test statistic for the habitat effect is 0.0381.

Implication of the F Test Result

Given the P-value associated with this F statistic is 0.9627, which exceeds the significance level of 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This indicates that, statistically, habitat interference does not significantly influence the moth populations based on this analysis.

Additional Questions and Their Insights

- Method to reduce extraneous factors: Using a randomized experimental design or controlled laboratory conditions, rather than convenience sampling, better isolates the effect of the independent variable. Convenience sampling is generally associated with increased bias, not reduction of extraneous factors. Therefore, the statement suggesting that convenience sampling reduces extraneous factors is false.

- McNemar’s Test: Applied to paired nominal data to evaluate if the discordant pairs are symmetric, as is the case for treatment effects on the same subjects. The calculated Chi-square value from the plan and the given data would assess whether the proportion of patients with no improvement under laser treatment equals that under eye drops.

- Chi-square tests: For categorical data like neonatal deaths across days of the week, the Chi-square statistic measures deviations from expected frequencies under the null hypothesis of equal distribution.

- Proportions comparison: A Z-test for comparing two proportions (favor vs. oppose on the abortion issue) assesses whether male and female attitudes differ significantly at the 0.01 level.

- Correlation interpretation: A high positive or negative correlation indicates a linear relationship but does not establish causation. A conclusion claiming causality from correlation suggests a common error.

- T-test for independent samples: Comparing means from two independent samples with unequal variances involves the Welch's T-test, and calculating the T statistic is essential.

- Proportions in medical studies: Z-tests are standard for comparing proportions (e.g., death rates), assuming independence and sufficient sample size.

Conclusion

The analysis of the ANOVA table demonstrates that habitat interference, as measured, does not have a statistically significant effect on moth populations. The F test statistic crucially informs this conclusion. Other statistical tests illustrated, such as Chi-square, Z-test, and t-test, serve vital roles across experimental designs providing insight into categorical and continuous data relationships. Accurate interpretation of these tests supports biological and medical research, guiding effective decision-making and understanding.

References

• Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd.
• Glantz, S. A. (2012). Primer of Applied Regression and Analysis of Variance. McGraw Hill Education.
• Newcombe, R. G. (1998). Two-sided confidence intervals for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Statistics in Medicine, 17(8), 873-890.
• McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2), 153-157.
• Agresti, A. (2007). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. Wiley-Interscience.
• Gibbons, J. D., & Chakraborti, S. (2011). Nonparametric Statistical Inference. CRC Press.
• Lehmann, E. L., & Romano, J. P. (2005). Testing Statistical Hypotheses. Springer.
• Zimmerman, D. W. (1997). A note on the distribution of the sample correlation coefficient. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22(4), 319-326.
• Altman, D. G. (1991). Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall.
• Vittinghoff, E., et al. (2012). Regression Methods in Biostatistics. Springer.