In the ANOVA and simple regression models that we have run so far, most of them have been a single response/dependent variable as a function of a single predictor/independent variable. But in many cases we know that there are several things that could reasonably influence the response variable. For example, species and sex could both affect sparrow size; age and sex could both influence running time.
It is straightforward to include multiple predictors. We start with the simple, special case of Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), which includes one categorical and one continuous predictor. Multiple linear regression can include any number of categorical and continuous predictors.
Statisticians realised early on that ANOVA was merely the beginning of analysing experiments—other factors apart from the experimental treatment might influence the response variable they were interested in.
This issue is especially pertinent when considering change, i.e., does our experimental treatment affect growth or survival? Here, the starting point of each sample is important. If we are measuring growth of seedlings, how big that seedling is at the start of the experiment will have a big affect on its growth. Moreover, if by chance all the big seedlings ended up in one treatment and the small ones in another, we may erroneously assign significance to the treatment.
Thus, analysis of variance with a continuous covariate was born, and we can ask if our treatment had a significant effect, accounting for the measured variation in seedling initial size, for example.
An ANCOVA is able to test for differences in slopes and intercepts among regression lines:
A difference in intercept suggests a differences in magnitude but not in the rate of change, i.e., the regression lines are parallel.
A difference in slope suggests a difference in the rate of change, i.e., the regression lines are not parallel.
aov()
or lm()
,
anova()
.
We will illustrate ANCOVA with the mtcars
dataset that comes with R.
data(mtcars)
head(mtcars)
mpg cyl disp hp drat wt qsec vs am gear carb
Mazda RX4 21.0 6 160 110 3.90 2.620 16.46 0 1 4 4
Mazda RX4 Wag 21.0 6 160 110 3.90 2.875 17.02 0 1 4 4
Datsun 710 22.8 4 108 93 3.85 2.320 18.61 1 1 4 1
Hornet 4 Drive 21.4 6 258 110 3.08 3.215 19.44 1 0 3 1
Hornet Sportabout 18.7 8 360 175 3.15 3.440 17.02 0 0 3 2
Valiant 18.1 6 225 105 2.76 3.460 20.22 1 0 3 1
The data was extracted from the 1974 Motor Trend US magazine, and comprises fuel consumption and 10 aspects of automobile design and performance for 32 automobiles (1973-74 models).
A data frame with 32 observations on 11 variables:
[, 1] mpg Miles/(US) gallon
[, 2] cyl Number of cylinders
[, 3] disp Displacement (cu.in.)
[, 4] hp Gross horsepower
[, 5] drat Rear axle ratio
[, 6] wt Weight (1000 lbs)
[, 7] qsec 1/4 mile time
[, 8] vs V/S
[, 9] am Transmission (0 = automatic, 1 = manual)
[,10] gear Number of forward gears
[,11] carb Number of carburetors
The mpg
of a car can depend on a number of variables, including the transmission type (am
) and horse power (hp
).
We will model mpg as a function of hp and am and ask if am has a significant effect.
Thus, we take mpg
as the response variable, hp
as the predictor variable and am
as the categorical variable.
Use ` * ` to indicate the interaction between the categorical variable and the covariate.
Put the continuous variable first. This is because R conducts the ANOVA tests sequentially, thus removing (or accounting) for the effect of hp
before testing for differences between am
.
m1 <- aov(mpg ~ hp * am, data = mtcars)
summary(m1)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
hp 1 678.4 678.4 77.391 1.50e-09 ***
am 1 202.2 202.2 23.072 4.75e-05 ***
hp:am 1 0.0 0.0 0.001 0.981
Residuals 28 245.4 8.8
The summary shows that horse power and transmission type have significant effects on miles per gallon (the p-values are less than 0.05), but the interaction is not significant.
Next, run the additive model (use ` + `).
m0 <- aov(mpg ~ hp + am, data = mtcars)
summary(m0)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
hp 1 678.4 678.4 80.15 7.63e-10 ***
am 1 202.2 202.2 23.89 3.46e-05 ***
Residuals 29 245.4 8.5
Both horse power and transmission type have a significant effect on miles per gallon.
We can compare m0 and m1 with the anova()
function to assess if removing the interaction significantly affects the fit of the model.
anova(m1, m0)
Analysis of Variance Table
Model 1: mpg ~ hp * am
Model 2: mpg ~ hp + am
Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F)
1 28 245.43
2 29 245.44 -1 -0.0052515 6e-04 0.9806
This shows that removing the interaction does not significantly affect the fit of the model (F = 6e-04, p = 0.98).
Therefore, we conclude that the most parsimonious model is m0, the additive model. The interaction between horse power and transmission type is not significant.
So mpg will respond similarly to variation in horse power for both automatic and manual cars.
We can plot mpg
as a function of hp
, and include the different am
using the pch =
(plotting character) argument.
plot(mpg ~ hp, data = mtcars, pch = am + 2)
Function: abline()
Can take either a model object (for simple regression), or an intercept and slope.
To add a line for automatic and a line for manual cars, we need to extract the intercept and slope for each type from the model.
Recall that we can use aov()
and lm()
interchangeably.
We can also use summary()
, summary.aov()
, and summary.lm()
interchangeabley, too.
We want to view the coefficient estimates of the linear model.
summary.lm(m1)$coef
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 26.6248478696 2.18294320 12.19676624 1.014017e-12
hp -0.0591369818 0.01294486 -4.56837583 9.018508e-05
am 5.2176533777 2.66509311 1.95777527 6.028998e-02
hp:am 0.0004028907 0.01646022 0.02447662 9.806460e-01
This table shows the intercept (26.58, first row) and slope (-0.059, second row) of the base level of am
(which is 0).
The third row gives us the difference between the intercept of am == 1
and am == 0
(5.28).
The forth row gives us the difference between the slopes of am == 1
and am == 0
(0.0004).
We can also access the coefficient estimates with coef()
coef(m1)
(Intercept) hp am hp:am
26.6248478696 -0.0591369818 5.2176533777 0.0004028907
So, one way to add a line for each transmission type is as follows.
We can extract the intercept and slope for auto and manual and then pass these values to abline()
.
A_intercept <- coef(m1)['(Intercept)']
A_slope <- coef(m1)['hp']
A_line <- c(A_intercept, A_slope)
M_intercept <- A_intercept + coef(m1)['am']
M_slope <- A_slope + coef(m1)['hp:am']
M_line <- c(M_intercept, M_slope)
par(lwd = 2, cex = 1.5)
plot(mpg ~ hp, data = mtcars,
pch = am + 2, col = c('black','red')[am + 1])
abline(A_line, col = 'black')
abline(M_line, col = 'red')
We can modify the formula to return the actual coefficient estimates for each sex, rather than the differences (see formulas for more info on the kinds of formulas we can write).
First, we nest hp in am: am/hp
. Then, we remove the single intercept using ` - 1`.
(In this case, we also have to convert the $am
column to a factor within the model.)
m2 <- lm(mpg ~ as.factor(am)/hp - 1, data = mtcars)
summary(m2)
Call:
lm(formula = mpg ~ as.factor(am)/hp - 1, data = mtcars)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-4.3818 -2.2696 0.1344 1.7058 5.8752
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
as.factor(am)0 26.62485 2.18294 12.197 1.01e-12 ***
as.factor(am)1 31.84250 1.52888 20.827 < 2e-16 ***
as.factor(am)0:hp -0.05914 0.01294 -4.568 9.02e-05 ***
as.factor(am)1:hp -0.05873 0.01017 -5.777 3.34e-06 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 2.961 on 28 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.9825, Adjusted R-squared: 0.98
F-statistic: 393.5 on 4 and 28 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
This model gives us the actual intercepts and slopes for each sex. The p-values test whether each value is significantly different from 0 (not that useful, because these are the actual values not the differences).
We can then extract these estimates and pass them directly to abline()
without any calculations.
Multiple linear regression is simply an extension of linear regression and ANCOVA, with more variables.
Multiple regression allows us to see the relationship between two variables accounting for other variables in the model.
Let’s continue with the mtcars dataset, and model mpg as a function of hp, am, and another continuous variable, the weight of the car ($wt
, in 1000 lbs).
m3 <- lm(mpg ~ hp + am + wt, data = mtcars)
summary(m3)
Call:
lm(formula = mpg ~ hp + am + wt, data = mtcars)
Residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-3.4221 -1.7924 -0.3788 1.2249 5.5317
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 34.002875 2.642659 12.867 2.82e-13 ***
hp -0.037479 0.009605 -3.902 0.000546 ***
am 2.083710 1.376420 1.514 0.141268
wt -2.878575 0.904971 -3.181 0.003574 **
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Residual standard error: 2.538 on 28 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.8399, Adjusted R-squared: 0.8227
F-statistic: 48.96 on 3 and 28 DF, p-value: 2.908e-11
We can interpret the output similarly to our previous discussion of linear regression and ANCOVA.
Call:
The model formula,
Residuals:
The quartiles of the residuals from the model,
Coefficients:
For continuous predictors The Estimate and Standard Error for the intercept and slope. Each estimate is the change in y for a change in 1 unit of x. It also includes the t-values and associated p-values testing if the estimates are significantly different from 0.
For categorical predictors the default is to display the mean of the base level (in this case Species A), and then the difference between the mean of each level and the base level. So, here we have the difference between the mean Tarsus size of Species B from Species A. It also includes the t-values and associated p-values testing if the estimates of this difference are significantly different from 0.
R-squared:
The proportion of the variation in the response variable that is explained by the predictor,
Adjusted R-squared:
R2 corrected for the number of variables in the model.
F statistic
From the ANOVA table of the model.
Colinearity of the predictors
If any of the predictors are strongly correlated, the model may not give sensible estimates for the coefficients. Thus, you should explore the data, plot the variables, and think about the research questions. This may entail including only certain variables in the model, or using a multivariate approach (e.g., PCA) to reduce the number of variables.
Rescaling the predictors
If the continuous predictors have very different ranges and scales, it may be hard to sensibly compare the coefficient estimates. Thus, you may want to rescale all the continuous predictors using the function scale()
. Usually you want to subtract the mean and divide by the standard deviation. The coefficient estimates in the model output are then the change in y for a 1-unit change in the sd of x.
First, extract the coefficient estimates from the model output, leaving out the top line (the intercept, which we are not usually the interested in for this kind of figure).
res <- summary(m3)$coef[-1, ]
res
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
hp -0.03747873 0.009605422 -3.901830 0.0005464023
am 2.08371013 1.376420152 1.513862 0.1412682367
wt -2.87857541 0.904970538 -3.180850 0.0035740311
Then, we can plot these values.
# plot data in order
plot(1:3 ~ res[, 'Estimate'],
## set range and label of x-axis
xlim = c(-4, 4), xlab = 'Estimate',
## do not plot y-axis
yaxt = 'n', ylab = '')
# add dashed zero line in grey
abline(v = 0, lty = 3, col = 'grey')
# add axis to side 2 (left, the y-axis)
axis(side = 2, at = 1:3, labels = rownames(res), las = 1)
# Then we can add the error bars, using `segments()`
segments(x0 = res[, 'Estimate'] - res[, 'Std. Error'], x1 = res[, 'Estimate'] + res[, 'Std. Error'],
y0 = 1:3, y1 = 1:3)
# Finally, we can color each point depending on whether is has a significant p-value.
## Set new vector of two colours
COL <- c('white', 'black')
## plot filled points
points(x = res[, 'Estimate'], y = 1:3, pch = 21, cex = 2,
## with colour based on the P value
bg = COL[(res[, 'Pr(>|t|)'] < 0.05)+1])