Description
- The following data were collected, to compare two treatments. The treatments were randomlyassigned to test subjects.
| treatment 1 | treatment 2 | ||
| subject | response | subject | response |
| 10 | 7.5 | 11 | 9.5 |
| 9 | 9.6 | 6 | 9.7 |
| 5 | 8.4 | 2 | 10.8 |
| 12 | 10.6 | 8 | 11.9 |
| 7 | 9.9 | 4 | 10.0 |
| 1 | 10.6 | 3 | 12.9 |
- Estimate the difference between treatment effects, and test if it is significantly different from
0.
- Now suppose that it is discovered that the response can be affected by the season, and thatthe data was collected over a period of six months, in the order given by the table. That is, a month was spent collecting each row of the table.
We re-express the experiment by blocking: each month (row of the table) is considered one block, and we model the data as an additive two-factor model (the factors being the treatment and the block). Using this model, repeat your analysis. Is the estimate different? Is the p-value different?
- In lectures, we showed that for the (randomised) complete block design
yij = µ + βi + τj + εij,
- solution to the reduced normal equations for τ = (τ1,…,τk)T is given by
(¯y·1 − y¯··,…,y¯·k − y¯··)T.
Here we suppose that we have b blocks and k treatments.
Consider now the completely randomised design, with k treatments and b replications of each treatment yij = µ + τi + εij.
Treating µ as a nuisance parameter, obtain the reduced normal equations for τ, then show that they admit the solution
(¯y1 − y¯·,…,y¯k − y¯·)T.
- Suppose we have a (randomised) complete block design, yij = µ + βi + τj + εij, with b blocks and k
Let cT be a treatment contrast, so that cTτ is estimable, in which case
.
- Give an approximate 100(1−α)% CI for cTτ, using the percentage point from a normal rather than the correct percentage point from a t (This is reasonable if the degrees of freedom are large.)
- Now suppose that you know σ2 (perhaps you have an estimate from a pilot study), and that you think a plausible alternative to cTτ = 0 is given by some cTτ∗ 6= 0. How large should b be to give a power of 100(1 − α)% against this alternative (roughly)?
- Consider the following data:
| Response | Block | Treatment |
| 1.245 | 1 | 1 |
| 1.804 | 1 | 2 |
| 2.468 | 2 | 1 |
| 6.664 | 2 | 3 |
| 5.573 | 3 | 1 |
| -0.560 | 3 | 4 |
| 7.880 | 4 | 2 |
| 10.469 | 4 | 3 |
| 0.457 | 5 | 2 |
| -3.621 | 5 | 4 |
| -4.291 | 6 | 3 |
| -9.384 | 6 | 4 |
- Show that this data comes from a balanced incomplete block design, and give t, b, k, r and λ.
- Give the design matrix XA for a model with block and treatment effects (and an overall
mean).
- Using this model, estimate τ1 −τ2, the difference between the first two treatment effects, and its variance. Write the variance estimate as s2cT(XATXA)cc for a suitable c.
- Give the design matrix XB for a model with just treatment effects (and an overall mean).
- Using this model, estimate τ1 −τ2, the difference between the first two treatment effects, and its variance. Write the variance estimate as s2cT(XBTXB)cc for a suitable c.
- Show that when going from model A (BIBD) to model B (CRD) the term cT(XTX)cc decreases, but s2 increases markedly. What does this indicate?
- Is your estimate for τ1 − τ2 the same or different for the two models? Why?
- Consider the BIBD model, with t treatments and b blocks of size k. Let λ be the number of times each pair appears, and write the design as
y.
Show that for this model, contrasts in τ are estimable.
If cTτ is a contrast, show that an unbiased estimate is (k/λt)cTq, where
qb
and t are the treatment totals and b the block totals.
- An experimenter is tasked with designing an experiment to compare three treatment levels. Thereis a known confounding factor, so a blocked design is appropriate. Consider the following two designs, each using four blocks of size three:
block 1: 1 2 3
block 2: 2 1 3
Design 1
block 3: 1 3 2
block 4: 3 2 1
block 1: 1 1 2
block 2: 2 2 3
Design 2
block 3: 3 3 1
block 4: 1 2 3
- Which design is a complete block design?
- Write down the design matrix for each design. Hence show that τ2 − τ1 is estimable in each case.
- For each design, in terms of the unknown error variance σ2, what is the variance of the estimator for τ2 − τ1, the difference between the first two treatment effects?
Based on this, which design is better?
- In some situations, it is sensible to think of block effects as random. For example, experimentsperformed on a single day might be considered as a single block, subject to some effect for conditions on that day.
Consider the following model for an experiment with fixed treatment effects τ and random block effects β (independent of the error ε):
y = X1β + X2τ + ε, Eε = 0, Var ε = σ2I, Eβ = µ1, Var β = σβ2I.
- Find Ey and V = Var y.
- Give a solution to the generalised least squares problem:
min(y − X2t)TV −1(y − X2t). t
- A problem with the generalised least squares above is that µ may not be zero, so that if we write y = X2τ + ε0, then ε0 = ε + X1β does not have a zero mean. To get around this, first suppose that each block is of size k, so
,
then suppose that U is such that
Put y1 = UTy and yy, then show that we can write them as linear models whose errors have mean zero.
- Show that Cov(y1,y2) = E(y1 − Ey1)(y2 − Ey2)T = 0.



