I have a data set with three groups: {Hi, Low}, {Drug amount 1, Drug amount 2...}, {Time 1, time 2, Time 3...}
The dependent variable is a percentage, which I have log transformed (as the distribution of the error was dependent on the value... i.e. I would be seeing 1% +/- 0.1, but 90% +/- 9%)
I am really interested in whether or not the effect of the first group is significant. I have performed a three-way ANOVA, but the resulting p-values seem too small (type II SS, categorical variables, testing only for linear interactions).
In my research as to whether or not this sort of p-value might be expected, I have come across some similar questions (such as Very small p-value after performing ANOVA TEST (small sample size)), with answers suggesting that this issue might be a result of non-normally distributed data.
What I don't understand, is how I can tell if this sort of data is normally distributed (my sample size is small, n=3).
So I have
| Time 1 | Time 2 | Time 3 | Time 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amount One | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 |
| Amount Two | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 |
| Amount Three | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 |
| Amount Four | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 |
| Amount Five | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 | n=3 |
And I have this twice, once for {Hi} and once for {Low}. Is there a way to check for normality here, with n=3, or do I not really have enough samples to be performing a three-way ANOVA?
I've ended up grouping my exposure amounts and times into a single categorical variable, treatment condition, and performing a Two-Way ANOVA. I've then checked a qq plot and can see that normality is a reasonable assumption, so I'm relatively happy.
I'm worried about being asked to defend not having done a three-way ANOVA - is there a sort of rule of thumb on a number of observations at which a Three-way ANOVA becomes meaningful? I haven't been able to find anything
– MDN Feb 02 '23 at 13:06