Two sample t test  equal variances not assumed  overview
This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the righthand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table
Two categorical, the first with $I$ independent groups and the second with $J$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$, $J \geqslant 2$)
2 paired groups
One categorical with $I$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$)
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
One of ordinal level
One of ordinal level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
H_{0}: $\mu_1 = \mu_2$
Here $\mu_1$ is the population mean for group 1, and $\mu_2$ is the population mean for group 2.
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{0} for main and interaction effects together (model): no main effects and interaction effect
H_{0} for independent variable A: no main effect for A
H_{0} for independent variable B: no main effect for B
H_{0} for the interaction term: no interaction effect between A and B
Like in one way ANOVA, we can also perform $t$ tests for specific contrasts and multiple comparisons. This is more advanced stuff.
H_{0}: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) = P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{0}: the population median of the difference scores is equal to zero
A difference score is the difference between the first score of a pair and the second score of a pair.
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in all $I$ populations:
H_{0}: the population medians for the $I$ groups are equal
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{0}: the population scores in any of the $I$ groups are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in any of the other groups
Formulation 2:
H_{0}:
P(an observation from population $g$ exceeds an observation from population $h$) = P(an observation from population $h$ exceeds an observation from population $g$), for each pair of groups.
Several different formulations of the null hypothesis can be found in the literature, and we do not agree with all of them. Make sure you (also) learn the one that is given in your text book or by your teacher.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
H_{1} two sided: $\mu_1 \neq \mu_2$
H_{1} right sided: $\mu_1 > \mu_2$
H_{1} left sided: $\mu_1 < \mu_2$
ANOVA $F$ tests:
H_{1} for main and interaction effects together (model): there is a main effect for A, and/or for B, and/or an interaction effect
H_{1} for independent variable A: there is a main effect for A
H_{1} for independent variable B: there is a main effect for B
H_{1} for the interaction term: there is an interaction effect between A and B
H_{1} two sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) $\neq$ P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} right sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) > P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
H_{1} left sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) < P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair)
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as:
H_{1} two sided: the population median of the difference scores is different from zero
H_{1} right sided: the population median of the difference scores is larger than zero
H_{1} left sided: the population median of the difference scores is smaller than zero
If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale and the shape of the distribution of the dependent variable is the same in all $I$ populations:
H_{1}: not all of the population medians for the $I$ groups are equal
Else:
Formulation 1:
H_{1}:
the poplation scores in some groups are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in other groups
Formulation 2:
H_{1}:
for at least one pair of groups:
P(an observation from population $g$ exceeds an observation from population $h$) $\neq$ P(an observation from population $h$ exceeds an observation from population $g$)
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Within each population, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Within each of the $I \times J$ populations, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
The standard deviation of the scores on the dependent variable is the same in each of the $I \times J$ populations
For each of the $I \times J$ groups, the sample is an independent and simple random sample from the population defined by that group. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Equal sample sizes for each group make the interpretation of the ANOVA output easier (unequal sample sizes result in overlap in the sum of squares; this is advanced stuff)
Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another
Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2, $\ldots$, group $I$ sample is an independent SRS from population $I$. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
$t = \dfrac{(\bar{y}_1  \bar{y}_2)  0}{\sqrt{\dfrac{s^2_1}{n_1} + \dfrac{s^2_2}{n_2}}} = \dfrac{\bar{y}_1  \bar{y}_2}{\sqrt{\dfrac{s^2_1}{n_1} + \dfrac{s^2_2}{n_2}}}$
Here $\bar{y}_1$ is the sample mean in group 1, $\bar{y}_2$ is the sample mean in group 2,
$s^2_1$ is the sample variance in group 1, $s^2_2$ is the sample variance in group 2,
$n_1$ is the sample size of group 1, and $n_2$ is the sample size of group 2. The 0 represents the difference in population means according to the null hypothesis.
Note: we could just as well compute $\bar{y}_2  \bar{y}_1$ in the numerator, but then the left sided alternative becomes $\mu_2 < \mu_1$, and the right sided alternative becomes $\mu_2 > \mu_1$.
For main and interaction effects together (model):
Here $N$ is the total sample size, $R_i$ is the sum of ranks in group $i$, and $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$. Remember that multiplication precedes addition, so first compute $\frac{12}{N (N + 1)} \times \sum \frac{R^2_i}{n_i}$ and then subtract $3(N + 1)$.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for $H$ is more complicated.
n.a.
Pooled standard deviation
n.a.
n.a.

$
\begin{aligned}
s_p &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score}  \mbox{its group mean})^2}{N  (I \times J)}}\\
&= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\
&= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
Approximately the $t$ distribution with $k$ degrees of freedom, with $k$ equal to
$k = \dfrac{\Bigg(\dfrac{s^2_1}{n_1} + \dfrac{s^2_2}{n_2}\Bigg)^2}{\dfrac{1}{n_1  1} \Bigg(\dfrac{s^2_1}{n_1}\Bigg)^2 + \dfrac{1}{n_2  1} \Bigg(\dfrac{s^2_2}{n_2}\Bigg)^2}$
or
$k$ = the smaller of $n_1$  1 and $n_2$  1
First definition of $k$ is used by computer programs, second definition is often used for hand calculations.
For main and interaction effects together (model):
$F$ distribution with $(I  1) + (J  1) + (I  1) \times (J  1)$ (df model, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For independent variable A:
$F$ distribution with $I  1$ (df A, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For independent variable B:
$F$ distribution with $J  1$ (df B, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
For the interaction term:
$F$ distribution with $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ (df interaction, numerator) and $N  (I \times J)$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Here $N$ is the total sample size.
The exact distribution of $W$ under the null hypothesis is the Binomial($n$, $P$) distribution, with $n =$ number of positive differences $+$ number of negative differences, and $P = 0.5$.
If $n$ is large, $W$ is approximately normally distributed under the null hypothesis, with mean $nP = n \times 0.5$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{nP(1P)} = \sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}$. Hence, if $n$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W  n \times 0.5}{\sqrt{n \times 0.5(1  0.5)}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
For large samples, approximately the chisquared distribution with $I  1$ degrees of freedom.
For small samples, the exact distribution of $H$ should be used.
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
Two sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Check if $F$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $F^*$ or
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $F$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If $n$ is small, the table for the binomial distribution should be used:
Two sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
If $n$ is large, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
Two sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For large samples, the table with critical $X^2$ values can be used. If we denote $X^2 = H$:
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\mu_1  \mu_2$
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
$(\bar{y}_1  \bar{y}_2) \pm t^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{s^2_1}{n_1} + \dfrac{s^2_2}{n_2}}$
where the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{k}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20).
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the independent variables and the interaction effect together:
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by an independent variable or interaction effect:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}
\end{align}
$$
$\eta^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.
Proportion variance explained $\omega^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $\eta^2$ and is equal to:
$$
\begin{align}
\omega^2_A &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares A}  \mbox{degrees of freedom A} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_B &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares B}  \mbox{degrees of freedom B} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\\
\omega^2_{int} &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares int}  \mbox{degrees of freedom int} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}\\
\end{align}
$$
$\omega^2$ is a better estimate of the explained variance in the population than
$\eta^2$. Only for balanced designs (equal sample sizes).
Proportion variance explained $\eta^2_{partial}$:
$$
\begin{align}
\eta^2_{partial\,A} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares A}}{\mbox{sum of squares A} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,B} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares B}}{\mbox{sum of squares B} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}\\
\\
\eta^2_{partial\,int} &= \frac{\mbox{sum of squares int}}{\mbox{sum of squares int} + \mbox{sum of squares error}}
\end{align}
$$


Visual representation
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.



n.a.
ANOVA table
n.a.
n.a.



n.a.
Equivalent to
Equivalent to
n.a.

OLS regression with two categorical independent variables and the interaction term, transformed into $(I  1)$ + $(J  1)$ + $(I  1) \times (J  1)$ code variables.
Is the average mental health score different between men and women?
Is the average mental health score different between people from a low, moderate, and high economic class? And is the average mental health score different between men and women? And is there an interaction effect between economic class and gender?
Do people tend to score higher on mental health after a mindfulness course?
Do people from different religions tend to score differently on social economic status?
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
Analyze > Compare Means > IndependentSamples T Test...
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Test Variable(s) and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Click on the Define Groups... button. If you can't click on it, first click on the grouping variable so its background turns yellow
Fill in the value you have used to indicate your first group in the box next to Group 1, and the value you have used to indicate your second group in the box next to Group 2
Continue and click OK
Analyze > General Linear Model > Univariate...
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factor(s)
Put your dependent variable in the box below Test Variable List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Click on the Define Range... button. If you can't click on it, first click on the grouping variable so its background turns yellow
Fill in the smallest value you have used to indicate your groups in the box next to Minimum, and the largest value you have used to indicate your groups in the box next to Maximum
Continue and click OK
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
TTests > Independent Samples TTest
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variables and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable
Under Tests, select Welch's
Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
ANOVA > ANOVA
Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your two independent (grouping) variables in the box below Fixed Factors
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the sign test. However, you can do the Friedman test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this Friedman test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the sign test. Go to:
ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA  Friedman
Put the two paired variables in the box below Measures
ANOVA > One Way ANOVA  KruskalWallis
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variables and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Grouping Variable