One-way ANOVA: 9TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 185.5 185.50 17.37 0.000
Error 58 619.6 10.68
Total 59 805.1
Model Summary
R-sq 23.04% | R-sq(adj) 21.71% | R-sq(pred) 17.64% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 56.740 | 2.662 (55.546, 57.934) | |
D 30 | 60.257 | 3.779 (59.062, 61.451) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 3.26841 | |
Có thể bạn quan tâm!
-
Sinh Trưởng Tương Đối Của Dê Định Hóa -
Kích Thước Một Số Chiều Đo Chính Của Dê Định Hóa -
Kích Thước Một Số Chiều Đo Theo Tính Biệt -
Năng Suất Thịt Thời Điểm 9 Tháng Tuổi Theo Tính Biệt -
Năng Suất Thịt Tại Thời Điểm 12 Tháng Tuổi -
So Sánh Năng Suất Thịt Tại Thời Điểm 9 Và 12 Tháng Tuổi
Xem toàn bộ 306 trang tài liệu này.
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 60.257 A
C 30 56.740 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
One-way ANOVA: 12TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 447.2 447.17 30.98 0.000
Error 50 837.1 14.43
Total 51 1284.3
Model Summary
R-sq 34.82% | R-sq(adj) 33.69% | R-sq(pred) 30.25% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 26 | 61.997 | 3.467 (60.608, 63.385) | |
D 26 | 67.457 | 4.105 (66.068, 68.845) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 3.79910 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 26 67.457 A
C 26 61.997 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
3. DÀI THÂN CHÉO
One-way ANOVA: 1TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 99.33 99.331 80.00 0.000
Error 58 72.02 1.242
Total 59 171.35
Model Summary
R-sq 57.97% | R-sq(adj) 57.25% | R-sq(pred) 55.02% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 32.427 | 1.070 (32.019, 32.834) | |
D 30 | 35.000 | 1.157 (34.593, 35.407) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.11432 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 35.000 A
C 30 32.427 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
One-way ANOVA: 3TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 179.9 179.920 68.46 0.000
Error 58 152.4 2.628
Total 59 332.3
Model Summary
R-sq 54.14% | R-sq(adj) 53.35% | R-sq(pred) 50.92% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 38.540 | 1.468 (37.948, 39.132) | |
D 30 | 42.003 | 1.761 (41.411, 42.596) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 1.62110 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 42.003 A
C 30 38.540 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
One-way ANOVA: 6TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 139.8 139.843 25.04 0.000
Error 58 323.9 5.584
Total 59 463.7
Model Summary
R-sq 30.16% | R-sq(adj) 28.95% | R-sq(pred) 25.26% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 44.267 | 2.276 (43.403, 45.130) | |
D 30 | 47.320 | 2.447 (46.456, 48.184) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 2.36299 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 47.320 A
C 30 44.267 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
One-way ANOVA: 9TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 104.8 104.81 9.96 0.003
Error 58 610.1 10.52
Total 59 714.9
Model Summary
R-sq 14.66% | R-sq(adj) 13.19% | R-sq(pred) 8.67% | |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 30 | 50.040 | 3.280 (48.855, 51.225) | |
D 30 | 52.683 | 3.206 (51.498, 53.869) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 3.24328 | |
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 52.683 A
C 30 50.040 B
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
One-way ANOVA: 12TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 103.2 103.23 6.54 0.013
Error 50 915.0 15.78
S 3.97199 | R-sq 10.14% | R-sq(adj) 8.59% | R-sq(pred) 3.83% |
Means | |||
TT N | Mean | StDev 95% CI | |
C 26 | 56.453 | 3.872 (55.002, 57.905) | |
D 26 | 59.077 | 4.069 (57.625, 60.528) | |
Pooled | StDev = | 3.97199 | |
Total 51 1018.3 Model Summary
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence
N | Mean Grouping | |
D | 26 | 59.077 A |
C | 26 | 56.453 B |
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
4. VÒNG ỐNG
One-way ANOVA: 1TT versus Tinh biet
Method
Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Significance level α = 0.05
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
Factor Information
Factor Levels Values TT 2 C, D
Analysis of Variance
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value TT 1 0.04817 0.04817 1.60 0.210
Error 58 1.74167 0.03003
Total 59 1.78983
Model Summary
R-sq 2.69% | R-sq(adj) 1.01% | R-sq(pred) 0.00% | |
TT N | Mean | StDev | 95% CI |
C | 30 | 5.0533 | 0.1525 (4.9900, 5.1167) |
D | 30 | 5.1100 | 0.1918 (5.0467, 5.1733) |
Pooled StDev = 0.173288
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence TT N Mean Grouping
D 30 5.1100 A
C 30 5.0533 A
Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.