between-group variation

between-group variation

The variation due to interaction between the samples, which is the sum of squares between groups. If the sample means are close to each other, and therefore the grand mean, this will be small; there are k samples involved with one data value for each sample (the sample mean), so there are k-1 degrees of freedom.
References in periodicals archive ?
A test for within-group agreement (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and between-group variation (Hofmann, 1997; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) should be made before implementing cross-level statistical analysis.
Regarding these graphs (Figure 2a, c and e), the first dimension (Can1) has a higher proportion in explaining the between-group variation. In the first year graph (Figure 2a) two canonical dimensions explain 93.3% of the between-group variation, and the first dimension accounts for 84.9% of it.
Specifically, students gain hands-on experience in the critical nature of the selection of characters that allow for the identification of between-group variation to distinguish species, rather than within-group variation of the same species.
In addition, between-group variation in RR estimates was nonsignificant, whereas the between-source type variation was statistically significant.
The investigation of drug abuse among Latinos requires an especially nuanced conceptual and methodological framework that appropriately models a number of dimensions that determine within- and between-group variation. Drug type, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, English-language proficiency, national origin, race, gender, community characteristics, and acculturation level may all be determinants of drug abuse among Hispanics.
Unlike traditional analysis of variance (ANOVA) approaches for the decomposition of within-group and between-group variation, hierarchical linear model estimation does not require balanced data and utilizes all available information in an unbalanced data set.
(2) In the multilevel approach to structural equation modeling (SEM), one covariance matrix is formulated to describe the within-group variation in leadership and another covariance matrix is formulated to describe the between-group variation in the parameters of the within-group model.
Most of the between-group variation described by Te Puni Kokiri (2000) and others may, indeed, reside there.
In Panel A, no significant source of between-group variation was identified.
Building on these assumptions (that is, [[Sigma].sub.T] = [[Sigma].sub.B] + [[Sigma].sub.W] and [[Sigma].sub.W] = 0, when the single-level analysis involves a single-level covariance structure), Muthen (1994) developed a five-step process for performing MCA: (1) conventional factor analysis of the total structure using the sample total covariance matrix; (2) estimation of the between-group variation; (3) estimation of the within-group structure; (4) estimation of the between-group structure; and (5) estimation of the MCA model using both the between-group and within-group covariance matrixes.
Specifically, prerequisites to the hypothesis tests included demonstrations that (a) there was substantial within-group agreement as to the group's cohesiveness, and (b) that there was substantial between-group variation in cohesiveness.
(y) hv5, as (8) but on ventral surface hindwing Further examination of the data involved a comparison of within-group variation, as maximized in principal component analysis (PCA), and between-group variation, as maximized in discriminant function analysis (DFA).