EDCO 735

Question 01:
A scientist may, for instance, assess the impact of three different herbicides on an invasive species'
seed development in a forest habitat.
The biologist would want to investigate which treatment yields the lowest yearly seed output while
simultaneously estimating the mean annual seed production under each of the three distinct
treatments. These are the alternative and null hypotheses:

H0: µ1= µ2= µ3 H1: at least one of the means is significantly different from the others
It might be tempting to compare the population averages again to test the null hypothesis
H0: µ1= µ 2= µ3.
We would need to test three separate sets of assumptions if we kept going in this direction:
H1: at least one of the means is significantly different from the others
H0: µ1= µ2= µ3

It might be tempting to compare the population averages again to test the null hypothesis H0: µ1=
µ2= µ3. We would need to test three separate sets of assumptions if we kept going in this direction:

H0: µ1= µ2 AND H0: µ1= µ3 AND H0: µ2= µ3

H1: µ1≠ µ2 H1: µ1≠ µ3 H1: µ2≠ µ3

Each test would have a probability of a Type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true) of
= 0.05 if we applied a 5% threshold of significance.
There would be a 95% chance that each test would properly reject the null hypothesis. The chance
that the null hypothesis is not accurately rejected by all three tests is 0.953 = 0.86. There is a
probability of 1 - 0.953 = 0.14 (14%) that at least one test will result in erroneously rejecting the null
hypothesis. The desired alpha of 5% is substantially lower than the actual alpha of 14% (remember:
is the same as Type I mistake). The likelihood of producing a Type I error when employing multiple
t-tests rises as the number of populations does as well. We may use analysis of variance to compare
the alternative hypothesis, "at least one mean is different," to the null hypothesis, "all means are
equal."

The ANOVA's presumptions include

 EDCO 735

(1) A random sample of observations from each treatment group's population

(2) The populations are all evenly dispersed

(3) Variations in the population for each treatment group include homogeneous

The daily use of alcoholic drinks would be your dependent variable.

Use a nested ANOVA for the analysis if your groups or levels have a hierarchical structure (each
level has a different subgroup).

There is no distinction between the experimental and control groups, which is the null hypothesis
(e.g., there are no differences due to sex or age, the drug is not poisonous)
The goal of statistical testing is to disprove the null hypothesis. In other words, we calculate the
likelihood that the observed difference between two groups might have arisen from pure chance. We
say that we reject the null hypothesis if this likelihood is less than a preset number known as the
significance level, which is typically 5% (or occasionally 1%) in biological studies. The outcome is
then described as statistically significant, which is the only acceptable scientific usage of the word
"significant." We come to the conclusion that the experimental treatment, or the group difference, has
biological significance, and we then investigate why.

Question 02:
ANOVA informs you of the statistical significance of the results, but post hoc analysis is
required to determine which of the groups or data sets have statistical significance.

A set of t-tests called the Bonferroni test are run on each pair of groups. This post hoc test may
be used to determine whether groups are substantially different from one another. This is also
true of Duncan's multiple comparison test, which enables you to determine whether groups or
means are statistically significant. We need the MS between to be bigger than the MS within to
reject the null hypothesis that would lead to a significant difference.

References:

1. Sarstedt, M., & Mooi, E. (2019). Hypothesis testing and anova. In A concise guide to
market research (pp. 151-208). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
2. St, L., & Wold, S. (1989). Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Chemometrics and intelligent
laboratory systems, 6(4), 259-272.
3. Mooi, E., Sarstedt, M., & Mooi-Reci, I. (2018). Hypothesis testing & ANOVA. In
Market Research (pp. 153-214). Springer, Singapore.