How to Critique a Factorial ANOVA Research Article

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Article Critique: Factorial Anova

The article by Salahuddin and Khola (2013) evaluated the chloride content in the surface of water. The research paper is an extension Chaudhary et al work. The author used the Two-Way Anova in the analysis. Two-Way-Anova is used to compare mean between two differences groups that has been split on two explanatory variables. The main goal of the factorial Anova is to establish whether there is an interaction between the factors on the response variable. In this case, the independent variables must be two factors while the dependent variable must be a continuous variable. Similarly, the authors selected the Two-Way-Anova since the study had two explanatory categorical variables, location and number of months, while the continuous dependent variable was chlorine content. Besides, the method was used to assess whether the content of chloride in surface changed due to location and the month period and whether there was interaction among the independent variables.

I think the test used by the authors was appropriate for study. The parameters needed to be addressed in the test were captured. That is, the study had two categorical independent variable, location and months and one continuous dependent variable, chloride content. The test could show whether there was a mean difference of chlorine content in the six locations; Kolan, Betha, Bairgarh, Khanugau, Karbala and Kamla Park, and where the difference varied across the months.

In most case, the factorial Anova results are presented in table format. Similarly, the authors presented the result in a table as shown below. However, the table missed the F-test column and the p-value column.

Table 1

Analyzing the Data Using Two Way Anova

Although the results were well tabulated, they were not stand alone. It missed to include the crucial F-tests results and their respective p-values. Hence, one could not conclude whether the results were significant or not. However, the author presented the F-test results and p-values outside the table. Based on the result, F-test calculated for area was, F1 = 10.11226. Since the critical value, F critical (11, 55) = 1.967547, was less than the calculated F-test value, we rejected the null hypothesis and concluded that the chloride content differed significantly in various area. On the other hand, the calculated value of months, F2 = 2.149115, while the tabulated F-value was, F critical (5, 55) = 2.382823. Hence, the difference in chloride content was not significant across the months. Using the results of the Factorial Anova, the authors conclude that the Chloride content at surface of upper lake water in different locations in Madhya Pradesh depends only on location and it does not depend on Months. Therefore, failing to include that critical values of the tests, the tables could not be termed as stand-alone.

Reference

Salahuddin, & Khola, R. K. (2013). Analysis of Chloride Content in the Surface of Water Using Two Way ANOVA. International Journal for Pharmaceutical Research Scholars (IJPRS), 2(4), 51-53.