Randomized Block and

Repeated Measures
Designs

Block Designs

In the Types of Studies presentation we

discussed the use of blocking to control for
a source of variation we think may effect the
response (e.g. slope in field, day, subject,
etc.).
When the blocks are subjects we often
times refer to the experiment as a repeated
measures design because we are taking
repeated measurements on the same
subjects.

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
The goal of this study was to determine if 4 different methods
for determining blood serum levels differ in terms of the
readings they give. Suppose we plan to have 6 readings from
each method which we will then use to make our
comparisons. One approach we could take would be to find
24 volunteers and randomly allocate six subjects to each
method and compare the readings obtained using the four
methods. (Note: this is a completely randomized design).

There is one major problem with this approach, what

is it?
Any significant differences between the methods could be
due to differences between the subjects within the
methods and NOT the methods themselves !!!

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
Instead of using a completely randomized design it
would clearly be better to use each method on the
same subject,
i.e. SUBJECTS = BLOCKS.

This removes subject to subject variation from the

results and will allow us to get a clearer picture of
the actual differences in the methods. Also if we
truly only wish to have 6 readings for each method,
this approach will only require the use of 6 subjects
(i.e. blood samples) versus the 24 subjects the
completely randomized approach requires, thus
reducing the cost of the experiment. Also if we
still used 24 subjects the number of replicates 6
24, which increases POWER and PRECISION (i.e.
smaller margins of error).

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum

The design described on the

previous slide is called a
randomized complete block
(RCB) design with subjects/blood
sample as blocks. METHOD
Subject
1
2
3
4
The results 1are 360
shown
below:
435
391
502

BLOCKS

1035

1152

1002

1230

632

750

591

804

581

703

583

790

463

520

471

502

1131

1340

1144

1300

Methods are
used in a
random
order for
each blood
sample.

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum

An incorrect analysis would treat

these results as coming from a
completely randomized design and
we would compare readings across
method only using Clearly
one-way
ANOVA
. is
between group
variation
very small relative to within group
variation. Not surprisingly we fail
to find method differences
(p = .7871).

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
What is lost in the previous analysis
is that the same blood samples are
being used for each method.

Clearly much of the within group

variation is due to subject
differences! Our analysis needs to
consider this source of variation
as well!
After removing the subject to
subject variation the differences
between the methods look like
this. Clearly the methods differ!

Model and Assumptions

The model for the observed response is given

by:

xij i j ij

xij observed value from treatment i and block j

i treatment i effect, i 1,...,k

j block j effect, j 1,..., b
ij random error

We assume that the errors are normally

distributed with constant variance.

This implies that the populations being sampled

are also normally distributed with equal
variances!

Hypotheses
Ho: treatment means are all equal
HA: at least two treatment means differ
For the blood serum level example we
can state things much more precisely
Ho: the four methods give the same mean serum
level when measuring the same blood samples.
HA: at least two methods differ on average
when measuring the same blood samples.

SS and MS Formulae
k

Total SS ( xij x ) 2

df kb 1 or N 1

i 1 j 1

Treatment SS b ( xi x ) 2

df k 1

i 1

Block SS k ( x j x ) 2

df b 1

j 1

Error SS Total SS Treatment SS Block SS

df (k 1)(b 1)

The Mean Squares for Treatment, Block and Error are

the SS divided by their df, i.e. MSeffect = SSeffect/dfeffect

Test Statistic for Treatment

Effect

MSTreat
Fo
~ F - distribution
MS Error

df numerator k 1 and df denominator (k 1)(b 1)

p-value

Fo

Large values of
Fo support the
alternative and
correspond to
small p-values.

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
Data Formats
JMP

SPSS

Subjec
t and
Metho
d must
be
nomin
al!

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
In JMP -

Analyze > Fit Y by X

Factor of
interest goes
here.
Blocking
factor goes
here.

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum

ANOVA Table

The methods significantly

differ when testing the same
blood sample (p < .0001).
Dont test
blocks
because they
are not
randomized.

SSTrea +
=
+
SSBlock SSError SSTotal
t

Subject to subject variation is

LARGE! Blocking was

MSTrea
MSErr
t

or

= Fo

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
Use Tukeys for Pair-wise Comparisons
of the Methods Compare Means > All
Pairs, Tukeys HSD

Methods 2 and 4 differ significantly

from methods 1 and 3. Also methods 2
and 4 do not significantly differ nor do
methods 1 and 3.

These intervals can be used to

quantify differences between the
methods when measuring the same

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum
In JMP - Fit Model Approach (we will use
this lots later)

Respons
e

Make sure these

boxes are as
shown. We will
change them later
when we consider
multiple and
logistic
regression.

Factors of
interest go
here.

For a JMP demo of this and the previous approaches

Example: Measuring Blood

Serum

SPSS: Analyze > General Linear Model >

Univariate
Dependent Variable
Serum Level

Fixed Factors:
Subject (blocks)
Method (factor of
Click here to specify the
interest)
model

Click here to specify Tukey

comparisons of the different
Methods.

Click Custom and add both

Repeated Measures
Analysis

The previous example can also be thought of

as a repeated measures design because
repeated measurements of the same blood
sample were taken, each coming using a
different method.
Another example would be a situation where
different treatments are used on the same
subjects, obviously this is not always possible.
Yet another common situation is where the
repeated measurements are taken over time.

Example 2: ESR for Arthritic

Patients

In a study of arthritic patients their

response to sulfasalazine was
investigated.

The erythocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)

was measured at baseline (0 months)
and again 3, 6, and 12 months after
treatment with sulfasalazine.

Q: Is there evidence that the mean ESR

changes over time? If so, researchers
wish to compare mean ESR for the three
follow-up periods to baseline.

Example 2: ESR for Arthritic

Patients
Patient
(blocks 0
)
Month
s
8.83
1
6.63
2
5.57
3
5.00
4
9.06
5
6.93
6

3
Month
s
3.74
2.24
4.24
3.32
3.16
4.24

6
12
Month Months
s
3.16
2.83
2.00
3.00
2.24
2.45
1.41
2.00
2.00
1.41
2.00
1.73

Example 2: ESR for

Arthritic Patients

Mean ESR changes

over time following
treatment
The mean ESR
is significantly
lower than
baseline for all
three follow-up
periods.

Example 2: ESR for

Arthritic Patients
There is no evidence that the
mean ESRs past baseline
significantly differ.

Use these Tukey intervals to

quantify changes in mean
ESR from baseline.

Example 2: ESR for Arthritic

Patients

The response ESR

appears to be normally
distributed for each time
period.
The equality of variance
tests do not suggest that
the variation in the ESRs