Abstract
Spatial variability among experimental units is known to exist in many designed experiments. Agronomic field trials are a particularly well-known example, but there are others. Historically, spatial variability has been dealt with in one of two ways: either though design, by blocking to account for spatial effects, or though analysis, by nearest neighbor adjustment. More recently, mixed models with spatial covariance structures such as those used in geostatistics have been proposed. These mixed model procedures have tempted some to conclude—to the dismay of many consulting statisticians—that design principles may be bypassed, since spatial covariance models can recover any lost information. Although design principles clearly should not be ignored, spatial procedures do raise questions. Are traditional notions of appropriate design affected? If so, how? How do spatial effects mixed models compare to conventional analysis of variance used in conjunction with blocked designs? This article presents mixed model methods to assess power and precision of proposed designs in the presence of spatial variability and to compare competing design and analysis strategies. The main conclusion is that, if anything, spatial models reinforce the need for sound design principles, particularly the use of incomplete block designs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cochran, W. G., and Cox, G. C. (1957), Experimental Designs (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley.
Isaaks, E. H., and Srivastava, R. M. (1989), An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Journel, A. G., and Huijbregts, C. J. (1978), Mining Geostatistics, London: Academic Press.
Kenward, M. G., and Roger, J. H. (1997), “Small Sample Inference for Fixed Effects from Restricted Maximum Likelihood,” Biometrics, 53, 983–997.
Krige, D. G. (1951), “A Statistical Approach to Some Basic Mine Valuation Problems of the Witswaterrand,” Journal of Chemical, Metallurgical, and Mining Society of South Africa, 52, 119–139.
Littell, R. C. (1980), “Examples of GLM Applications,” SAS Users’ Group International: Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conference, Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., pp. 208–214.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. (1996), SAS System for Mixed Models, Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Mead, R. (1988), The Design of Experiments, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, R. G., and Lohr, V. I. (1984), “Power Analysis for Univariate Linear Models: The SAS System Makes it Easy,” SAS Users’ Group International: Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference, Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., pp. 840–846.
Papadakis, J. S. (1937), “Méthod Statistique pour des Expériences sur Champ,” Bulletin Inst. Amelior. Plant. Thessalonique 23.
Stroup, W. W. (1999), “Mixed Model Procedures to Assess Power, Precision, and Sample Size in the Design of Experiments,” 1999 Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association, pp. 15–24.
Stroup, W. W., Baenziger, P. S., and Multize, D. K. (1994), “Removing Spatial Variation from Wheat Yield Trials: A Comparison of Methods,” Crop Science, 34, 62–66.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stroup, W.W. Power analysis based on spatial effects mixed models: A tool for comparing design and analysis strategies in the presence of spatial variability. JABES 7, 491–511 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1198/108571102780
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1198/108571102780