The implementation of the Alexander-Govern test in factorial design analysis

Nurul Syafiqah Ishak Latfi; Suhaida Abdullah

doi:10.32890/jcia2024.3.1.2

Authors

Nurul Syafiqah Ishak Latfi Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia
Suhaida Abdullah Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jcia2024.3.1.2

Keywords:

Alexander-Govern test, ANOVA, normality distribution, t-test, type I error rate

Abstract

This study proposed to evaluate the performance of the Alexander-Govern test (AG test), Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and t-test by analyzing the Type I error rate. The AG test is regarded as a reliable
control Type I error rate. This technique is insensitive in the presence of heteroscedasticity under a normal distribution. Simulation research was carried out using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) to assess the effectiveness of the tests that are based on the rate of Type I error. By creating the conditions that could highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each test, three variables are being manipulated: sample size, variance heterogeneity, and type of pairings. The performance of the AG tests is convincing when it is able to control the Type I error rates better compared to ANOVA under all conditions of heterogeneous variances. Meanwhile, the ANOVA performs best only when the variances are homogenous. A real data experiment was applied to validate the result. In the battery life design experiment, the p-value using the AG test and ANOVA are computed and compared. The AG test provides valid results when it can test the main effect and the interaction effect, as well as the ANOVA. With good performance in the simulation study, the AG test can be considered a good alternative
to the ANOVA when the assumptions of the homogeneity of variances are violated in the case of factorial design.

Author Biography

Suhaida Abdullah, Universiti Utara Malaysia

References

Abdullah, S., Yahaya, S. S. S., & Othman, A. R. (2011). Modified alexander-govern test as alternative to t-test and ANOVA F test. Sains Malaysiana, 40(10), 1187–1192. https://www.ukm.my/jsm/english_journals/vol40num10_2011/vol40num10_2011pg1187-1191.html

Abdullah, S., Yahaya, S. S. S., & Yusof, Z. M. (2014). Testing the equality of students’ performance using Alexander-Govern test with adaptive trimmed means. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1602, 1157–1160. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4882630

Alexander, R. A., & Govern, D. M. (1994). A new and simpler approximation for ANOVA under variance heterogeneity. Journal of Educational Statistics, 19(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986019002091

Allen, M. (2017). Factorial analysis of variance. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.n192

Antony, J. (2014). Full factorial designs. In Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists (pp. 63–85). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099417-8.00006-7

Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, (31), 144-152.

Crawley, M. (2012). Analysis of variance. In The R Book (pp. 498–536). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118448908.ch11

Hodžić, D., & Islamović, F. (2020). Factorial ANOVA experimental design in R. Proceedings of the 9th International Scientific Conference of Defensive Technologies, October 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344597074

Jamaluddin, F. B. (2015). Alexander-govern test using winsorized means. https://www.scoutsecuador.org/site/sites/default/files/%5Bbiblioteca%5D/5.1 Conservacion de alimentos y Recetas sencillas.pdf%0Ahttp://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/245180/245180.pdf%0Ahttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12380/245180%0Ahttp://dx

Mendeş, M., & Yiğit, S. (2013). Type I error and test power of different tests for testing interaction effects in factorial experiments. Statistica Neerlandica, 67(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2012.00528.x

Montgomery, D. C. (2020). Design and analysis of experiments. John wiley and sons. https://shorturl.at/glQ79

Nguyen, D., Kim, E., Wang, Y., Pham, T. V., Chen, Y.-H., & Kromrey, J. D. (2019). Empirical comparison of tests for one-factor ANOVA under heterogeneity and non-normality: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 18(2), 2–30. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1604190000

Ochuko, T. K., Abdullah, S., Zain, Z., & Syed Yahaya, S. S. (2015a). Modifying and evaluating the Alexander-Govern test using real data. Modern Applied Science, 9(12), 1–11. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/17619

Ochuko, T. K., Abdullah, S., Zain, Z., & Syed Yahaya, S. S. (2015b). The modification and evaluation of the Alexander-Govern test in terms of power. Modern Applied Science, 9(13), 1–21. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/17618

Ochuko, T. K., Abdullah, S., Zain, Z., & Syed Yahaya, S. S. (2015c). Winsorized modified one step m-estimator in Alexander-Govern test. Modern Applied Science, 9(10), 51–67. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/17623

Schneider, P. J., & Penfield, D. A. (1997). Alexander and govern’s approximation: Providing an alternative to anova under variance heterogeneity. Journal of Experimental Education, 65(3), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1997.9943459

Wilcox, R. R. (2003). One-way anova. In Applying Contemporary Statistical Techniques (pp. 285–328). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012751541-0/50030-4