Developing the ANOVA Model

through
One-Way ANOVA
&
Univariate General Linear Model
As part of Weekly Assignments

To be Submitted to
PROF. SREEDHARA R.

Presented by:
Anindya Biswas
1527605, M1
Dish Type is tabulated in the first column of the input data table and the ratings given by the
customer are tabulated in the second column. At random, the twenty-eight respondents are
asked to rate their favorite dish type on a 10-point scale.

Here, the dependent variable is the rating given by the randomly chosen respondent and the
independent variable is the dish code.
Dish Type
1

Ratin
g
6

Hypothesis
The Null Hypothesis for this problem can be stated as:
H0: The mean rating of the dish type is the same for all the four dish types
[H0: D1 = D2 = D3 = D4]

Ha: The mean rating of the dish type is different for all the four dish types
[Ha: D1 D2 D3 D4]
We tested the above data at 95% confidence level to determine whether any one dish type is
being preferred more than the other dishes by the respondents chosen.

Analysis of Variance
Output Table 1: Descriptives

Rating
N
1
2
3
4
Total

7
7
7
7
28

Mean
Std. Deviation Std. Error
7.14
1.345
.508
8.14
.690
.261
6.14
.900
.340
6.57
.787
.297
7.00
1.186
.224

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum Maximum
5.90
8.39
5
9
7.50
8.78
7
9
5.31
6.97
5
7
5.84
7.30
6
8
6.54
7.46
5
9

Output Table 2: ANOVA

Rating
Between Groups
Within Groups
Total

Sum of Squares
15.714
22.286
38.000

df
3
24
27

Mean Square
5.238
.929

F
5.641

Sig.
.005

From the 1st Table we can gather from the mean values that the 2nd category is indeed
preferred more than the other dish types as it has a mean value that is significantly
higher than the other categories.
Furthermore, from the last column in the 2 nd Table we can see that the significance of the FTest is .005. This signifies that at a confidence level of 95%, the F-Test proves that the data
collected and the subsequent model developed is highly significant. In other words, we can
say that the ratings given by the respondents for the four dish types are significantly
differ from each other.
The mean rating for the four dish types are: 7.14, 8.14, 6.14 and 6.57 respectively. This
ANOVA on the mean values tells us that the difference shown above is statistically
significant at 95% confidence level. So, our null hypothesis is rejected and we can conclude
in this case that, significant differences exist between ratings given to the four types of dishes.
We now focus on the same problem, but with an additional column, that is, the location of
the hotel. We assume the four dish types have been delivered in all the seven locations of the
hotel. Thus, the input data table now looks as given in the following page:

Dish Type
1

Ratin
g
6

Locatio
n
1

Out of the customers who visited these seven locations we picked up one respondent from
each location as can be seen from the table above who has tasted a particular dish type. So
here, if we carefully observe, we can find that we have one respondent for every combination
of dish type and location possible.
Hypothesis
We assume that the location of the hotel in which the dish type is being offered may have an
impact on the ratings. We will test two hypotheses by performing a ANOVA with a
randomized block design. For the purpose of the problem, we have taken rating as the
dependent variable, dish type as the independent variable or fixed factor and
location as the block or covariate.
Here, in this problem, the location where the hotel is situated could intervene and influence
the rating given to the dish by a customer. We are trying to remove the effect of the location
by blocking its effect. The reason one does so, is that, because if we do not do this, then the
effect gets included in the error (residual) term. This may ultimately lead the researcher to a
wrong conclusion about the nature of the relationship between the dependent variable (rating)
and the fixed factor (dish type).

Thus, we can say that in the above respect, the one-way ANOVA with the randomized block
design is much more accurate and significant than the simple one-way ANOVA if the block
effect is significantly influencing the relationship.
Thus, the sets of Hypotheses being tested in this scenario are:
Hypotheses Set 1:
H0: The mean rating of the dish type is the same for all the four dish types
[H0: D1 = D2 = D3 = D4]

Ha: The mean rating of the dish type is different for all the four dish types
[Ha: D1 D2 D3 D4]
Hypotheses Set 2:
H0: The location of the hotel has no effect on the mean ratings for the dish type given
by the customers.
Ha: The location of the hotel has effect on the mean ratings for the dish type given by
the customers.
We would test these hypotheses at 95% confidence level.
Analysis of Variance
Output Table 3: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Rating
Source

Type III Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Corrected Model

16.036

4.009

4.198

.011

Intercept

257.857

257.857

270.016

.000

Location

.321

.321

.337

.567

DishType

15.714

5.238

5.485

.005

Error

21.964

23

.955

Total

1410.000

28

38.000

27

Corrected Total

a. R Squared = .422 (Adjusted R Squared = .321)

As we can see from the table above that the value of the significance of F-Test is .005 for the
DishType Factor whereas for the factor Location the value of the significance of F-Test is .
567. What we can infer from the above is that while DishType does have a significant
influence on the ratings given by the various customers (because the p-value is .005 which
is less than the value of .050) but the location of the hotel does not have a significant
effect on the mean ratings given to the various dish types by the respondents (because, in
this case, the p-value is .567 which is much greater than the value of .050).
Thus, in other words, in the first instance we would reject the null hypotheses and state
that the mean rating of the dish type is different for all the four dish types and in the
second case we would accept the null hypotheses stating that the location of the hotel has
no effect on the mean ratings for the dish type given by the customers.
5