Finite-population Anova calculations for models with interactions

January 21, 2013
By

(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)

Jim Thomson writes:

I wonder if you could provide some clarification on the correct way to calculate the finite-population standard deviations for interaction terms in your Bayesian approach to ANOVA (as explained in your 2005 paper, and Gelman and Hill 2007).

I understand that it is the SD of the constrained batch coefficients that is of interest, but in most WinBUGS examples I have seen, the SDs are all calculated directly as sd.fin<-sd(beta.main[]) for main effects and sd(beta.int[,]) for interaction effects, where beta.main and beta.int are the unconstrained coefficients, e.g. beta.int[i,j]~dnorm(0,tau).

For main effects, I can see that it makes no difference, since the constrained value is calculated by subtracting the mean, and sd(B[]) = sd(B[]-mean(B[])).

But the conventional sum-to-zero constraint for interaction terms in linear models is more complicated than subtracting the mean (there are only (n1-1)*(n2-1) free coefficients for an interaction b/w factors with n1 and n2 levels). When I estimate a model with constrained coefficients directly the SD of those constrained coefficients is different to the SD of unconstrained coefficients for the same model, and I am assuming the later are incorrect?

Can you confirm that the finite pop SD must be calculated from the constrained coefficients, and that sd(beta.int[,]) will not be correct for interaction terms?

It would be great if sd(beta.int[,]) were valid, because using constrained coefficients slows WinBUGS down considerably, but I can’t see that it is (unless I am misunderstanding the constraints).

My reply:

Yes, I find it more complicated with interactions because then I do in fact subtract row means and column means (ab[i,j] – a[i] – b[j] + mu). It’s do-able but I feel a little uncomfortable doing all this post-processing of inferences. I have this feeling that if I really were doing things right, everything would just pop out of the model. The post-processing feels too much like a duplication.



Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

Tags: ,


Subscribe

Email:

  Subscribe