Per<br><br>Designs 1 and 2 do not include columns for the subject specific means and thus have 15 more degrees of freedom. To my understanding, the designs are still repeated measures ANOVAs but it assumes that the subjects are all similar to one another. <br>
<br clear="all">-----<br>Darren Gitelman<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Per Nordmark <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"><a href="/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind0902%26L%3DSPM%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D842283%26B%3D--001636c5a2b1eacf52046208a2cf%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DISO-8859-1%26pending%3D" target="_parent" >[log in to unmask]</a></a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<p>Dear collegues,</p>
<p>I did the 2x3 factorial design within-subject ANOVA&nbsp;according to Gläscher and Gitelman (splendid tutorial!) on my data (as proposed in the original e-mail with the same subject as this mail posted february 2nd). For the &quot;design3&quot; example my df´s became (1,75) as expected for a 2x3 repeated measures ANOVA on 16 subjects.<br>

To my surprise &quot;design 1&quot; and &quot;design2&quot; both resulted in df 1,90. Should that be interpretated as &quot;design1&quot; and &quot;design2&quot; are not examples of repeated measures/within subject ANOVAs ?<br>

Or did I perhaps not understand the tutorial?</p>
<p>Please enlighten me !</p>
<div>&nbsp;</div><font color="#888888">
<div>Per Nordmark<br>Integrative Medical Biology</div>
<div>Umeå University</div>
<div>Sweden</div>
</font></blockquote></div><br>