Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2022 / Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3

A biological perspective on interpreting interaction effect

Sayfa
535–542
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It has also been focused on the importance of considering both statistical and practical significance while interpreting the statistical analysis results.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Factorial experiments are commonly employed in agricultural research as in other branches of applied sciences.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This is because researchers focus on interpreting the main effects although there is a significant interaction effect.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It has also been focused on the importance of considering both statistical and practical significance while interpreting the statistical analysis results.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Factorial experiments are commonly employed in agricultural research as in other branches of applied sciences. In these experiments, inferences related to the interaction are essential. However, many researchers are still unable to analyze this type of experiment and interpret the results in the correct way. This is because researchers focus on interpreting the main effects although there is a significant interaction effect. Of course, meaningful main effects can exist even in the presence of an interaction, especially if interactions do not affect the main effects. Therefore, it is extremely important to understand thoroughly in which situations only the interaction effect(s), in which cases only the main effect(s), and in which cases the interpretation of the main effects will be meaningful although the interaction effect is significant. In this study, evaluating factorial experiments has been discussed in detail, especially in studies related to animal science. It has also been focused on the importance of considering both statistical and practical significance while interpreting the statistical analysis results.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GENÇ, S., MENDEŞ, M. (2022). A biological perspective on interpreting interaction effect. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 46 - Sayı: 3, 535–542. https://ajindex.com/articles/614502

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (7)

  1. Yassin N, Morais AR, Muniz JA. Analysis of variance of factorial experiments with two factors and additional treatments. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 2002; 26 (7): 1541-1547
  2. Rocha F, do Vale NM, Barili JLOC, Guidolin AF, Bertoldo JG. An approach to the decomposition of interaction in a factorial experiment with five factors. Acta Scientiarum Agronomy 2012; 34 (1). doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v34i1.12104 3. Mendeş M. Statistical Methods and Experimental Design. Kriter Publication. İstanbul 2019 (in Turkish)
  3. Bezerra NF, Nunes GHS, Negreiros MZ. Assessment of multiple-comparison procedures of published articles in the journal Horticultura Brasileira from 1.983 to 2.000. Horticultura Brasileira 2002; 20 (1): 5-9. doi: 10.1590/S0102- 05362002000100001 5. Bertoldo JG, Coimbra JLM, Guidolin AF, Mantovani A, Vale NM. Difficulties related to the use of tests of comparison of averages in scientifi c articles. Biotemas 2008; 21 (2): 145-153. doi: 10.5007/2175-7925.2008v21n2p145 6. Bertoldo JG, Coimbra JLM, Guidolin AF, Miqueloto A, Toaldo D. Use or abuse in mean comparison tests: scientific or empiric knowledge?. Ciência Rural 2008; 38 (4): 1145-1148. doi: 10.1590/ S0103-84782008000400039 7. Mendeş M, Yigit S. Type I error and test power of different tests for testing interaction effects in factorial experiments. Statistica Neelandica 2013; 67: 1-26. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9574.2012.00528.x 8. Siemiatycki J, Thomas DC. Biological models and statistical interactions: An example from multistage carcinogenesis. International Journal of Epidemiology 1981; 10: 383-387. doi: 10.1093/ije/10.4.383 9. Cardellino RA, Siewerdt F. Use and misuse of statistical tests for comparison of means. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 1992; 21 (6): 985-995
  4. Wechsler FS. Unbalanced factorials: a misunderstood analysis. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 1998; 33(3): 231-26
  5. Nogueira MCS, Corrente JE. Triple interaction fractioning using PROC GLM CONTRAST/SAS applied to a three-way layout for balanced data. Bragantia 2000; 59 (1): 109-115. doi: 10.1590/ S0006-87052000000100017 12. Starmer CF, Lastra AA, Nesterenko VV, Grant AO. A proarrhythmic response to sodium channel blockade: Theoretical model and numerical experiments. Circulation 1991; 84:1364- 1377
  6. Nickerson RS. Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods 2000; 5: 241- 301
  7. Fan X. Statistical significance and effect size in education research: two sides of a coin.