So^rce of vaĄation

r

55

MS

Fs

Expected

MS

i

a-l

^^among

ss„

a-l

MS.^

a‘ + n„o;

Y-Y '

SS_w|th,_n

ss.^

o²

Y-Y ^

SStoui

Ąurceof Ąr/atńn j

dr

SS

MS

F_s

Y-f /

3

1807.73

602.58

5.26

Y-Y '

33

3778.00

114.48

Y-Y

36

5585.73

| Step 4 - Conclusion

i Step 5 - Estimation of variance 1 components (model II)

JP

3p

Since sample size differs among groups, no single

■ The corresponding p-value for calculated F statistic

value of n is appropriate. We therefore use an

with [df_smong/ df_w(thin] degrees of freedom is equal to

„average" n - this is not the arithmetic mean of the

0.0045 < 0.05.

n.'s, but is

l

n„ *-r-

[t.-ŁSl.

■ We reject the H₀ hypothesis at p < 0.005.

^# a-l

i-t V‘ n,

V. i-*-1 ¹ y

■ There is a significant added variance component

¹ [[8 + 10 + 13+6] ⁸

+ 10^ł + 13² +6²)

among hosts for width of scutum in larval ticks

4-1 ¹

8 + 10 + 13 + 6 J

9.009

i Step 5 - Estimation of variance

i Step 5 - Estimation of variance

components (model II)

1 components (model II)

We may estimate the variance component as follows

Percent of variation among groups

_ił, MS_-MS^ 602.58-114.48

ww. 54.179

^A n„ 9.009 because

- - x 100 =-x 100 = 32.1%

s²+*i 114.48 + 54.179

^e(^ms*m)- «' +“.<*! ^E(^MS.«u.)=0^J

so

^Ms—

MS_w-kto=,²

The coefficient of interclass correlation rj=0.321