A comparison of analysis of covariate-adjusted residuals and analysis of covariance

Abstract

Various methods to control the influence of a covariate on a response variable are compared. These methods are ANOVA with or without homogeneity of variances (HOV) of errors and Kruskal-Wallis (K-W) tests on (covariate-adjusted) residuals and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Covariate-adjusted residuals are obtained from the overall regression line fit to the entire data set ignoring the treatment levels or factors. It is demonstrated that the methods on covariate-adjusted residuals are only appropriate when the regression lines are parallel and covariate means are equal for all treatments. Empirical size and power performance of the methods are compared by extensive Monte Carlo simulations. We manipulated the conditions such as assumptions of normality and HOV, sample size, and clustering of the covariates. The parametric methods on residuals and ANCOVA exhibited similar size and power when error terms have symmetric distributions with variances having the same functional form for each treatment, and covariates have uniform distributions within the same interval for each treatment. In such cases, parametric tests have higher power compared to the K-W test on residuals. When error terms have asymmetric distributions or have variances that are heterogeneous with different functional forms for each treatment, the tests are liberal with K-W test having higher power than others. The methods on covariate-adjusted residuals are severely affected by the clustering of the covariates relative to the treatment factors when covariate means are very different for treatments. For data clusters, ANCOVA method exhibits the appropriate level. However, such a clustering might suggest dependence between the covariates and the treatment factors, so makes ANCOVA less reliable as well.