Talk:Analysis of variance

"Fortunately, experience says that high order interactions are rare"

The above sentence is horribly unscientific (it is found in the subsection "ANOVA for multiple factors"), even though a reference is given. Experience with what? Clearly no one has gained experience with all possible topics in which an ANOVA may be used. The text of the reference is not easily accessed, so it is not possible to check under what conditions this "experience" is applicable. I have marked it with a to signal that this claim needs to be modified. While it is relevant to the topic, the sentence as presented is false.

"It [ANOVA] is conceptually similar to multiple two-sample t-tests, but is less conservative (results in less type I error)"

I think this is either wrong, or needs some clarification. Surely if the multiple t-tests are taken at face value and no correction is applied, then it is they that are less conservative than ANOVA, and not the other way around, as they will result in more type I errors. If 'conservative' here simply means 'producing fewer type I errors', then ANOVA is more conservative than uncorrected multiple t-tests, not less. Right? L T T H U (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I also noticed this and I agree. By definition, any statistical test should give type I errors with a frequency equal to the significance level -- so it does not depend on the test. I have marked this as requiring a citation. --Denziloe (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The "less conservative" had already been changed to "more conservative," and I added a citation. GinaZzo (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Error DF for Two Way Table.

Under "Design of Experiments Terms" for the Two Way ANOVA Table, the error DF reads (h-1)*(k-1). I believe this is incorrect. For a two way with no interaction term it should be N-h-k+1. Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C000:F9B3:C1CF:1AF3:44D:CA67 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The ANOVA tables were added in this edit of 26 June by 103.213.201.117. They don't fit in the "Design-of-experiments terms" subsection of the "Background and terminology" section, however, so I've removed them. --Qwfp (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Formatting within quotations

Article has bold phrases within quotations:
As a result: ANOVA "has long enjoyed the status of being the most used (some would say abused) statistical technique in psychological research."[14] ANOVA "is probably the most useful technique in the field of statistical inference."[15]
I suspect that this formatting doesn't appear in the original resources, and so should be either removed, or else noted as an editorial modification introduced here. —DIV (120.17.160.228 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC))