Closed eimichae closed 4 years ago
Given that
Eta2 = SSeffect / SStotal
and the intercept has a very large SSeffect, I don't see something suspicious here related to anova_stats()
. Maybe it's rather the car::Anova()
command? Or maybe the values are indeed ok?
Hi, Thank you very much for your response and your explanation. I think the main problem is that the type 3 Anova (car package) also provides an SSeffect for the intercept term (but it does not do that for the type 2 Anova, neither does the "anova()" base command introduce an intercept term). That seems to massively affect the outcome of the results since anova_stats() takes also the SSeffect of the intercept into account.
Ok, so you suggest ignoring the intercept when calculating eta-squared?
Yes, I think I would ignore the intercept term in case of subjecting a type 3 Anova to anova_stats().
Hi, I recently tried to use the function anova_stats of the sjstats package to calculate eta-squared statistic of a type 3 anova (car package) . I then compared the result with the eta-square values of the type 2 anova (car package) of exactly the same model.
Given that type 2 and 3 anovas are pre-se different I expected to get different eta-squared statistics. However, the differences were extremely different! When subjecting my type 3 anova to the anova_stats function, an intercept term was introduced that accounted for about 88% of the observed variance (eta-square of the intercept was 0.878) whereas all the other variables in the model had eta-squared values of <0.1. In contrast when subjecting the type 2 anova the anova_stats function no intercept term was introduced and my model variables had much higher eta-squared values (up to 0.5) Is this possible? The differences in terms of etasq. values between the two anovas seem to be rather extreme? Why is there an intercept term in the type3 anova but not in the type 2 anova? Thanks a lot for your help!
Below is my code and my raw data (dput)
CODE:
DATA: