Mirka Henninger & Simone Malejka 2022-11-11
This R-packages allows to perform contrast analyses for independent and dependent samples. In addition to standard contrast analyses, methods are provided to test two competing hypotheses can be tested against each other. All functions and explanations are based on Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin(2000) as well as Sedlmeier and Renkewitz (2008).
Contrast analyses allow researchers to test specific, directed, a priori hypotheses and are thus a sensible alternative to standard variance analyses. The results of contrast analyses are easier to interpret and effects can be detected with a higher power.
install.packages("devtools")
devtools::install_github("mirka-henninger/contrastanalysis")contrastanalysis allows to perform contrast analyses for independent and dependent samples. In addition to standard contrast analyses, methods are provided to test two competing hypotheses can be tested against each other. All functions and explanations are based on Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin(2000) as well as Sedlmeier and Renkewitz (2008).
Contrast analyses are a sensible alternative to standard variance analyses as it allows to test specific, directed, a priori hypotheses. This leads to results that are easier to interpret and effects can be detected with a higher power.
After the contrastanalysis package has been installed, we load it by the following command.
library(contrastanalysis)To illustrate the functions of this package, we use two datasets that are already available in R: a subset of variables of the iris data for contrast analysis for independent samples and president for contrast analyses for dependent samples. We load the data using the following code:
# load data
data("iris")
iris <- iris[,c("Species", "Petal.Length")]
presidents <- data.frame(Qtr1=presidents[seq(1, length(presidents), 4)],
Qtr2=presidents[seq(2, length(presidents), 4)],
Qtr3=presidents[seq(3, length(presidents), 4)],
Qtr4=presidents[seq(4, length(presidents), 4)])
presidents <- na.omit(presidents)
# some overview of the data
par(mfrow = c(1,2))
plot(iris$Species, iris$Petal.Length, type = "b", main = "Example used \nfor independent samples", xlab = "Species", ylab = "Petal Length")
plot(colMeans(presidents), type = "b", main = "Example used \nfor dependent samples", xlab = "Calendar Quarter", ylab = "Approval Ratings")
The iris dataset contains the independent variable Species with three groups (setosa, versicolor, and virginica) and the dependent variable Petal.Length. The presidents datasets contains quarterly approval rating for the US presidents.
We show how to test a priori specified hypotheses using planned contrast analysis, but also how to directly test two competing contrasts against each other. We will give an example of each approach for independent samples using the iris dataset and for dependent samples using the presidents dataset.
We would like to compare petal length of different species of iris. We have two hypotheses:
H1: An increase in petal length from setosa over versicolor to virginica
H2: Setosa has smaller petal length than versicolor and virginica
For p = 3 groups of species, we can perform p - 1 = 2 planned contrasts. The contrast weights of the two contrasts are based on the two hypotheses:
λ(H1) = (-1,0,1)
λ(H2) = (-1,0.5,0.5)
Using these specification we can perform a contrast analysis for independent samples using the package.
The contrast weights λ are assigned to an object using the matrix function in R with contrasts in rows and groups in columns. The data must contain subjects in rows and two columns: the first columns contains the group indicator (here Species), the second column contains the dependent variable (here Petal.Length).
# extract the number of groups
(n_group <- length(levels(iris$Species)))
#> [1] 3
# define lambda weights
lambda1 <- c(-1,0,1) # H1: An increase from setosa over versicolor to virginica
lambda2 <- c(-2,1,1) # H2: Setosa has smaller petal length than versicolor and virginica
# perform contrast analysis
contrast_independent(n_group, lambda1, iris)
#> SS df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value
#> Contrast 1 418.2025 147 4.09 47.5212 2258.262 0
#> r_effect_size r_alerting r2_alerting r_contrast
#> Contrast 1 0.949 0.9781 0.9568 0.969
contrast_independent(n_group, lambda2, iris)
#> SS df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value
#> Contrast 1 395.3712 147 6.888 46.2058 2134.975 0
#> r_effect_size r_alerting r2_alerting r_contrast
#> Contrast 1 0.9228 0.9511 0.9045 0.9673The output of the contrast_independent function contains results for both contrasts: Sums of squares and corresponding F-values, contrast estimates and corresponding t-values as well as two-tailed p-values. Furthermore, it contains several effect sizes, such as r(effect size) which can be interpreted as a correlation between the dependent variable and the contrast weights, r(alerting) corresponding to the correlation between group means and contrast weights, r(alerting)² which can be interpreted similar to a determination coefficient as a measured of explained variance by the contrast. r(contrast) is useful for power analyses.
The results of this empirical example show that for α = .05, Contrast 1 and Contrast 2 fit the data well, as all t > 46.21 and all p < .001. Hence, it seems that there is an increase in petal length from setosa over versicolor to virginica, and at the same time the results suggest that setosa has smaller petal length than versicolor and virginica.
However, one may not be interested in whether there is support for H1 and/or H2 in the data, but in which of the two hypotheses H1 and H2 outperforms the other. We can directly test the two competing hypotheses against each other:
# define lambda weights
lambda1 <- c(-1, 0, 1) # H1: Iris versicolor is distinct to Iris setosa and Iris virginica
lambda2 <- c(-2, 1, 1) # H2: Iris versicolor is more similar to Iris virginica
# Perform contrast analysis
compare_independent(n_group=3, lambda_preferred = lambda1, lambda_competing = lambda2, iris)
#> $results
#> SS df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value r_effect_size
#> Contrast 1 1.1958 147 0.1387 2.5411 6.4574 0.0121 0.0507
#> r_alerting r2_alerting r_contrast
#> Contrast 1 0.0523 0.0027 0.2051
#>
#> $contrast_weights
#> lambda_preferred_std lambda_competing_std lambda_diff
#> 1 -1.224745 -1.4142136 0.1894687
#> 2 0.000000 0.7071068 -0.7071068
#> 3 1.224745 0.7071068 0.5176381The output of the compare_independent function contains the same information as contrast_independent in terms of test statistics and effect sizes. But, results are shown for one test only, namely a different comparison of the two hypotheses. In addition, the standardized contrast weights as well as their difference that is used for the contrast analyses are shown in the output.
When the t-value of the summary of results is positive and significantly different from 0, the data supports Hypothesis H1, while the data support hypothesis H2 when the t-value is negative and significantly different from 0. Hence, the results of this direct comparison show that for α = .05, Contrast 1 does outperform Contrast 2 as t = 2.54 and p = .014. Hence, it seems that there is an increase in petal length from setosa over versicolor to virginica rather than setosa having smaller petal length than versicolor and virginica together. The results suggest that although Iris versicolor is a hybrid of the two other species, it is very similar to Iris virginica with regards to its petal length.
We would like to compare quarterly approval rating for the US presidents and again we have two hypotheses:
H1: A decrease in approval ratings with stagnation over warmer months
H2: A linear decrease in approval ratings
Please note that for p = 4 measurement occasions, we could perform a maximum p - 1 = 3 planned contrasts. However, as we only have two hypotheses, we only specify two contrast weight vectors:
λ(H1) = (-1, 0, 0, 1)
λ(H2) = (1, 1/3, -1/3, -1)
Using these specification we can perform a contrast analysis for dependent samples using the package.
As for the contrast analysis for independent samples, the contrast weights λ are assigned to an object using the matrix function in R with contrasts in rows and groups in columns. The data must contain subjects in rows and p columns, one for each measurement occasions that contain the dependent variable.
(n_group <- ncol(presidents))
#> [1] 4
# define lambda weights
lambda1 <- c(1, 0, 0, -1) # H1: decrease in approval ratings with stagnation over warmer months
lambda2 <- c(1, 1/3, -1/3, -1) # H2: linear decrease in approval ratings
# perform contrast analysis
contrast_dependent(n_group, lambda1, presidents)
#> df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value g
#> Contrast 1 25 7.9231 3.1008 9.6148 0.0047 0.6081
contrast_dependent(n_group, lambda2, presidents)
#> df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value g
#> Contrast 1 25 8.0641 3.2389 10.4904 0.0034 0.6352The output of the contrast_dependent function contains results for both contrasts: F-values, contrast estimates and corresponding t-values as well as two-tailed p-values. Furthermore, it contains the effect size g, a standardized distance measure.
The results of this empirical example show that for α = .05, Contrast 1 and Contrast 2 fit the data well, as all t > 3.10 and all p < .003. Hence, it seems that presidential approval ratings decrease over the four calendar quarters, but it cannot be identified whether or not this decrease stagnates over warmer months.
To directly compare the two contrasts and test whether the decrease stagnates over the summer months, we directly test the two competing hypotheses against each other:
# define lambda weights
lambda1 <- c(1, 0, 0, -1) # H1: decrease in approval ratings with stagnation over warmer months
lambda2 <- c(1, 1/3, -1/3, -1) # H2: linear decrease in approval ratings
# perform contrast analysis
compare_dependent(n_group=n_group, lambda_preferred = lambda1, lambda_competing = lambda2, presidents)
#> $results
#> df contrast_estimate t_value F_value p_value g
#> Contrast 1 25 0.3858 0.5439 0.2958 0.5914 0.1067
#>
#> $contrast_weights
#> lambda_preferred_std lambda_competing_std lambda_diff
#> 1 1.414214 1.3416408 0.07257278
#> 2 0.000000 0.4472136 -0.44721360
#> 3 0.000000 -0.4472136 0.44721360
#> 4 -1.414214 -1.3416408 -0.07257278The output of the compare_dependent function mirrors the information from contrast_dependent, but only shows results for one test only, namely a different comparison of the two hypotheses and shows the standardized contrast weights as well as their difference that is used for the contrast analyses.
Similar to the compare_independent function, the data supports Hypothesis H1 when the t-value of the summary of results is positive and significantly different from 0, while the data support hypothesis H2 when the t-value is negative and significantly different from 0. Hence, the results of this direct comparison show that for α = .05 neither of the two contrasts outperforms the other as t = 0.53 and p = .59. Hence, there is a decrease in approval ratings, but it is not decisive whether this decrease stagnates over the summer months or not.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge University Press.
Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2008). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik in der Psychologie. München: Pearson Studium.