<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Two-way ANOVA in Statistical Procedures</title>
    <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444076#M23307</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;In general, Type III is appropriate for this type of model, while Type I is not appropriate for this type of model.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;REGION is statistically significant. COL_TYPE is statistically significant. The interaction is statistically significant. (All at the alpha=0.05 level)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:38:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PaigeMiller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-03-09T13:38:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Two-way ANOVA</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444005#M23306</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I will admit from the start that this isn't really a programming question.&amp;nbsp; It's an interpretation of the results/statistical concept question.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a data set with mean salaries of different levels of professors (full, assistant, associate) from over 1,000 US colleges/universities.&amp;nbsp; I grouped all of the schools into 4 regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) and they're all rated on some kind of level of research facility (I, IIA, IIB).&amp;nbsp; I ran a two-way ANOVA test to model the overall average of all levels of professor, based on both region and research level:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;proc glm data=Prof_Sal;&lt;BR /&gt;class REGION COL_TYPE;&lt;BR /&gt;model AVE_SAL_ALL = REGION COL_TYPE REGION*COL_TYPE;&lt;BR /&gt;run;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The output is below.&amp;nbsp; I don't understand what the Type I and Type III tables represent.&amp;nbsp; If the two tables are the same, that means that there's no interaction, right?&amp;nbsp; The F-statistics differ in each table but the p-values are the same but I also don't understand what that means. Please help me interpret the table!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Capture.PNG" style="width: 481px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://communities.sas.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/19076i1F3635E76AFBE0E7/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="Capture.PNG" alt="Capture.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 05:43:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444005#M23306</guid>
      <dc:creator>phuzface</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-09T05:43:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Two-way ANOVA</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444076#M23307</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In general, Type III is appropriate for this type of model, while Type I is not appropriate for this type of model.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;REGION is statistically significant. COL_TYPE is statistically significant. The interaction is statistically significant. (All at the alpha=0.05 level)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 13:38:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444076#M23307</guid>
      <dc:creator>PaigeMiller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-09T13:38:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Two-way ANOVA</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444166#M23311</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for this information.&amp;nbsp; To make sure I'm analyzing this correctly, what this output says is that the mean salary is statistically significantly different:&amp;nbsp; by "region," by itself, AND by "college level," by itself.&amp;nbsp; The output also says that there are statistically significant differences between mean salaries for at least one of the combinations of "region" and "college level."&amp;nbsp; Since there are four regions and three college level, 3 x 4 = 12, so there are twelve different combinations.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Because there is statistically significant evidence of interaction between "region" and "college level" upon mean salary, it would be inappropriate to run one-way ANOVA for each of "region" and mean salary; and "college level" and mean salary...right?&amp;nbsp; Instead, I need to run a Tukey test to see which of the twelve combinations have statistically significantly different mean salaries.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again for your help with this.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 15:51:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444166#M23311</guid>
      <dc:creator>phuzface</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-09T15:51:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Two-way ANOVA</title>
      <link>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444173#M23312</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I agree with all that yoou wrote except the part where you said "I need to run a Tukey test..."&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You don't "need to" run the Tukey test, it's an option, among many options, to identify the parts of the interaction that are statistically different.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2018 16:19:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://communities.sas.com/t5/Statistical-Procedures/Two-way-ANOVA/m-p/444173#M23312</guid>
      <dc:creator>PaigeMiller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-03-09T16:19:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

