Analysis of MeansA Review

C. V. RAO
Nagarjuna University, Guntur 522510, India

Analysis of means (ANOM) is a graphical technique initially developed for testing the equality of several
population means. Later, ANOM was extended for testing the equality of several (i) treatment eects,
(ii) interaction eects, (iii) linear contrasts, (iv) proportions, (v) counts, (vi) variances, (vii) correlation
coecients. ANOM procedures reveal the statistical signicance as well as the practical signicance of
samples being compared. Hence, ANOM procedures are vital aids in the search-and-identication process.
ANOM procedures are highly useful in general and in particular to the practitioners in decision making.
This paper presents a brief review of work done so far along with the bibliography in this area.

KEY WORDS: ANOM Graphical Method.

Introduction whereas k 2 in ANOM charts to compute the de-

T HE ANALYSIS of one and multifactor experimental
designs has been traditionally carried out by the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) technique. ANOVA
identies factors and interactions that are statisti-
cally signicant. Beyond this, however, the experi-
menter and decision maker has to identify the spe-
cic congurations and factor-level combinations for
superior results from a consideration of cost, quality,
and feasibility point of view. Analysis of means is
an alternative to ANOVA for factors involving xed
eects but is inappropriate for factors involving ran-
dom eects.
Analysis of means (ANOM) is a technique origi-
nally developed by Ott (1967) for comparing a group
of treatment means to see if any one of them diers
signicantly from the overall mean. Otts procedure
is carried out by comparing the sample mean values
to the overall grand mean, about which decision lines
have been constructed. If a sample mean lies outside
these decision lines, it is declared signicantly dier-
ent from the grand mean. An ANOM chart, concep-
tually similar to a control chart, portrays decision
lines so that statistical signicance as well as practi-
cal signicance of samples may be assessed simulta-
neously. The main dierence between control charts
and ANOM charts is that the value of k (number of
samples being compared) is usually as large as 20 or
more in control charts to compute the control limits,
Dr. Rao is a Professor in the Department of Statistics. His
email address is cvrao1950@yahoo.co.in
cision lines. For process control, the control chart is
ideal. ANOM is only useful to determine if signi-
cant dierences exist in past data. ANOM is useful
for the improvement of quality rather than the con-
trol of quality.
Professor Ott observed that ANOVA was di-
cult for nonstatisticians to understand. His objec-
tive was to give quality-control practitioners some-
thing that they could use. ANOM is more eective
than ANOVA because graphical display of data is
a key part of the procedure. An old Chinese say-
ing is more apropos here A picture is worth 1,000
words and 10,000 numbers. The concepts of the
two procedures ANOM and ANOVA are basically
the same and the conclusions are usually the same.
The comments of Schee (1947) and Craig (1947),
addressing the comparison of ANOVA and control
charts, are applicable to a comparison of the ANOVA
with the ANOM. ANOVA looks to see if the group
taken as a whole displays any evidence of criminality,
whereas the ANOM looks to see if the group harbors
a criminal, it provides a method for identifying the
individual criminal. Therefore, ANOM procedures
with decision lines are vital aids in this search-and-
identication process. Recognizing the importance of
ANOM, the Journal of Quality Technology devoted
its January 1983 issue entirely to ANOM in honor of
Professor Ott.
Review of Literature
The review of papers is presented by dividing the
work done so far into several subheadings.

Journal of Quality Technology 308 Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005

 ANALYSIS OF MEANSA REVIEW
Comparison of Means
For testing the equality of several population
means, Ott (1967) introduced the analysis of means
procedure, which is based on the multiple signicance
test proposed by Halperin et al. (1955). Halperin et
al. (1955) computed upper and lower bounds to the
upper 5% and 1% points of the distribution of d,
where d = maxi=1,...,k {|xi x|/s} and conjectured
the true values were close to the lower bound. Ott
(1967) considered the averages of the above upper
and lower bounds as H . For comparing the individ-
ual sample means with the overall mean, Ott (1967)
computed the decision lines as
x H x ,
where
x : average of k sample means,
 
xn x x x1
H = max , ,
x x
R only for balanced complete designs but also for Latin
x = , = ,
n d2
R : average of k sample ranges,
d2 : a factor for estimating from R and it depends
on k (whereas the usual d2 factor in the control
chart is independent of k),
n : sample size.
Tables of H for = 0.05 and 0.01 have been devel-
oped by Ott (1967) for selected values of k and se-
lected degrees of freedom for error = 0.90k(n 1).
Schilling (1973a) used the critical values h in
computing the decision lines
 unrestricted with regard to the choice of signicance
k1
x h x ,
k
 Sheesley (1980) provided a computer program
where h = H k/(k 1). The upper bound from
Halperin et al. (1955) was considered as H by
Schilling (1973a), who developed the tables of h for
= 0.05 and 0.01. Nelson (1974) extended the ta-
bles of h for = 0.10 and 0.001. Sheesley (1981)
presented simplied factors A and computed the
decision lines as
x A R,
where
A = H /d2 n.
Later, Nelson (1982) obtained the exact critical
Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005
309
points for h and used the decision lines as

x h S (k 1)/kn,
where S 2 is the pooled sample variance and h is a
critical point, which depends on k, (degrees of free-
dom in S 2 ), and . h is the upper (/2k) percentage
point of the Students t-distribution with = k(n1)
degrees of freedom. Ott (1967) and Schilling (1973a)
used the range statistic and d2 to estimate in their
procedure. It is important to note that this proce-
dure gives an approximate result (although usually
quite satisfactory). By using S in the estimation of
, Nelson (1982) obtained exact critical values of h
for = 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 in the case of equal
sample sizes. L. S. Nelson (1983a) extended the ta-
bles of h factors for = 0.001, when the sample
sizes are equal. Also, he gave a procedure for obtain-
ing the critical values h when the sample sizes are
unequal. The above exact critical values were com-
puted for the case k. Nelson (1993) has shown
that these exact critical values are appropriate not
squares, Graeco-Latin squares, balanced incomplete
block (BIB) designs, Youden squares, and axial mix-
ture designs. When analyzing the main eects in a
factorial experiment or for certain parameter combi-
nations in Graeco-Latin squares and BIB designs, the
degrees of freedom for error can be less than the num-
ber of levels for some (or possibly all) of the factors.
Therefore, Nelson (1993) provided critical values for
the case < k and = 0.10, 0.05, 0.01, 0.001. Also, a
new table of critical values is given for = 0.25. Re-
cently, Farnum (2004) developed new formulas to cal-
culate the ANOM constants using commonly avail-
able mathematical processors. This approach makes
the ANOM constants easily accessible, portable, and
level, sample size, and number of populations.
that will perform the analysis of variables data as
well as experiments for analysis of attributes data.
A computer program for analysis of factorial exper-
iments simultaneously by ANOM and ANOVA was
developed by Schilling et al. (1980) and subsequently
modied by P. R. Nelson (1983b) to include exact
critical values.
P. R. Nelson (1983a) presented the tables of sam-
ple sizes for the ANOM necessary for detecting dier-
ences among k treatments when two of the treatment
means dier by at least a specied amount for xed
levels of signicance and power and compared these
www.asq.org
310
sample sizes with the previously published sample
sizes for the ANOVA by Bratcher et al. (1970).
Nelson (1985) presented power curves for ANOM
similar to those in Pearson and Hartley (1951) for
ANOVA. The curves give the power for detecting dif-
ferences among k treatments at level of signicance
when two of the treatment means dier by at least
a specied amount .
In testing the equality of several means, all
the above authors considered homogeneity of vari-
ances. Nelson and Dudewicz (2002) developed a het-
eroscedastic analysis of means (HANOM) procedure
for testing the equality of several means when the
population variances are not equal and provided
power curves that enable an experimenter to design
a study for detecting dierences among I treatment
means when any two of them dier by at least a spec-
ied amount . Dudewicz and Nelson (2003) gave an
example to illustrate the HANOM procedure of Nel-
son and Dudewicz (2002).
Bakir (1989) developed a nonparametric pro-
cedure called the analysis of means using ranks
(ANOMR) for testing the equality of several pop-
ulation means. Results from a Monte Carlo power
study are presented that indicate that, for light-
tailed distributions such as the uniform and the nor-
mal, ANOMR is only slightly less powerful than the
parametric competitive procedure based on ANOVA
and ANOM. For heavy-tailed distributions, such as
the Cauchy, ANOMR is shown to provide greater
power than the parametric procedures. The results
also indicate that, for both light- and heavy-tailed
distributions, the use of the ANOMR test instead
of the KruskalWallis test leads to only a small loss
of power for a range of alternatives. Bakir (1994)
proposed a procedure ANOMR for the analysis of
randomized complete block design (RBD). A Monte
Carlo study is made to compare the powers of
the proposed procedure with those of the ANOVA,
ANOM, and the Friedman procedures. Results of the
study indicate that the proposed procedure has supe-
rior power performance when testing against slippage
alternative hypotheses under heavy-tailed distribu-
tions, such as the Cauchy distribution.
Comparison of Treatment Eects and
Interaction Eects
Ott (1967) also discussed the use of ANOM in test-
ing for main eects and interaction eects. His tech-
nique was limited to two-way interactions in which
one of the factors is at only two levels. Schilling
Journal of Quality Technology
C. V. RAO
(1973a) extended the ANOM procedure to the anal-
ysis of main eects and interaction eects in a de-
signed experiment and called the procedure analysis
of means for treatment eects (ANOME). The deci-
sion lines in ANOME procedure are given by
0 e h q/ N ,
where
q = degrees of freedom associated with the
treatment (or interaction) plotted,
N = total number of observations in the
experiment,
e = estimate of experimental error.
The treatment eects or interaction eects are plot-
ted against the decision lines. The procedure for
ANOME was illustrated for testing treatment ef-
fects in a two-factor crossed model, two-factor nested
model, split-plot design, and incomplete block de-
sign. Schilling (1973a) used his ANOME plots to test
higher order interactions with no restrictions on the
number of levels of the factors involved. Later, Nel-
son (1988a) suggested an ANOM procedure for test-
ing the signicance of two-factor interactions in bal-
anced designs. When at least one factor is at only two
levels, the suggested procedure uses the exact critical
points given by L. S. Nelson (1983a). The correlation
structure for interaction eects is dierent from that
for main eects, and hence the exact critical values
given by L. S. Nelson (1983a) are not, in general,
appropriate when testing for interactions. However,
the correlation structure is the same when one of the
factors has only two levels. Nelson (1988a) gave new
critical points for the case in which both the factors
are at more than two levels but fewer than six lev-
els. The procedure can be extended to higher order
interactions.
To analyze the experimental data with missing ob-
servations in a randomized block design Subramani
(1992) developed a step-by-step ANOME procedure.
Recently, Budsaba et al. (2000) introduced a new
graphical method, called compass plot, that com-
bines the advantages of the star plot and the ANOM
to visualize the signicant interactions in complex
toxicology studies.
All the above authors considered homogeneity of
error variances in their studies. Nelson and Dudewicz
(2002) and Dudewicz and Nelson (2003) extended the
HANOM procedure for testing the main eects and
Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005
 ANALYSIS OF MEANSA REVIEW 311

interaction eects in a two-way layout model wherein
the error variances are unequal.
Comparison of Linear Contrasts
Schilling (1973b) extended the ANOM method to
linear contrasts and called the procedure analysis of
contrasts (ANCON). The decision lines in ANCON
procedure are given by
 of the Poisson distribution is at least ve. Here the
 k
proportions are replaced by counts ci . Ramig (1983)
 
0 e qF,q,  ai2 nx ,
i=1
where
e = error standard deviation,
q = degrees of freedom associated with
treatment involved,
F,q, = critical value for signicance level,
from the F -distribution with q and
degrees of freedom,
= degrees of freedom for error standard
deviation,
k the statistic plotted against the decision lines should
ai = contrast coecient ( i=1 ai = 0, )
n x = number of observations in each
treatment mean used in contrast,
k = total number of levels (means) for the
treatment of interest.
Schilling (1973b) used the ANCON procedure in 2p
and 3p experiments.
dom. p is the average of k sample proportions pi , and
each 
sample contains the same number of items n and
S = [p (1 p)]/n.
When the attributes data of interest are given by
count data, this can be represented with a Poisson
distribution. The Poisson distribution can be ade-
quately approximated by the normal if the mean
computed the decision lines as

c h c (k 1)/k,
where c is the average of all ci obtained from k sam-
ples.
It may be noted that Schilling (1973b) also studied
the above problems, i.e., ANOM for attributes data
using old h values.
Comparison of Variances
To use the ANOM graphical method, an impor-
tant prerequisite is that the statistic or a function of
have a normal distribution (at least, approximately).
Rao and Harikrishna (1997) developed an ANOM-
type graphical procedure for testing the equality of
several variances of normal populations, using cube-
root transformation of chi-square to normal distribu-
tion due to Wilson and Hilferty (1931). They com-
puted the decision lines in the case of equal sample
sizes as
Comparison of Proportions and Counts 
1/2
C(k 1)
t z/2k t ,
Attributes data is probably the most common and k
readily attainable type of information available in an where
industrial environment. ANOM was extended to the
2/3
attributes type data. This procedure makes use of the Si
fact that both the binomial and Poisson distributions ti = , Si2 = ith sample variance,
A
may be approximated by the normal distribution. k
ti 9n 11 18(n 1)
t= , A= , C= ,
The normal approximation to binomial distribu-
i=1
k 9(n 1) (9n 11)2
tion is generally considered to be adequate if np > 5
and n(1p) > 5, where p is the proportion of items in and Z/2k is the upper (/2k) percent point of the
the population having the attribute of interest. The standard normal distribution. Here ti are plotted
ANOM for proportions data is similar to that for against decision lines. Pran Kumar and Rao (1998)
variables data with quantitative measurements re- developed another ANOM-type procedure in the
placed by proportions. For the comparison of k sam- above problem using log transformation of Bartlett
ple proportions, Ramig (1983) computed the decision and Kendall (1946). They computed the decision
lines as  lines in the case of equal sample sizes as
p h S (k 1)/k,   
where h is the tabled value from L. S. Nelson 1 2 1
t z/2k 1 ,
(1983a) for k proportions and innite degrees of free- n1 k

Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005 www.asq.org

312 C. V. RAO

where where

1 1 1
k
k
t = t , t1i = ln Si2 . (ni 3)zi
k i=1 i 1 1 + ri i=1
zi = ln , zw= ,
2 1 ri (ni 3)
Here t1iare plotted against decision lines. Pran Ku- i=1
mar and Rao (1998) compared their procedure with ri = ith sample correlation coecient,
that of Rao and Harikrishna (1997). These authors 
 1
SE(zi z w ) = 
1
also derived the decision lines when the sample sizes  k .
are not equal.  ni 3
 (n 3)
i
Wludyka and Nelson (1997a) proposed a proce- i=1
dure called ANOMV for testing the equality of vari- Here zi are plotted against decision lines. In the
ances of normal populations in balanced designs and case of equal sample sizes, the decision lines using
computed ANOMV critical values for = 0.10, 0.05, Hotellings Z transformation are computed as
and 0.01. They also presented a large-sample version
of the test, which uses ANOM critical values of L. S. z Z/2k SE(zi z ),
Nelson (1983a), as well as a version of the test for un- where
balanced designs for which approximate critical val-
1
k
ues can be calculated. Later, Wludyka et al. (2001) 3zi + ri
zi = zi , z = z ,
presented power curves for the ANOMV procedure 4(n 1) k i=1 i
developed by Wludyka and Nelson (1997a) and of-   
fered guidance regarding the choice of sample size 1 1
SE(zi z ) = 1 .
and interpretation of results based on power consid- (n 1) k
erations. Wludyka and Nelson (1997b) proposed an-
Here zi are plotted against decision lines.
other procedure for testing the equality of variances
using subsampling and jackkning techniques. Applications in Industry
Wludyka and Nelson (1999) presented two non- Some of the papers written by people working in
parametric ANOM-type tests for homogeneity of industries, cited applications of ANOM to grand-lot
variances. The rst test is based on analysis of means acceptance sampling procedure, electrical data, anal-
for ranks (ANOMR), which is a nonparametric ver- ysis of multiple-head machines, silicon crystal termi-
sion of the ANOM that uses ranks as input for an nation problem, and analysis of Taguchi signal-to-
ANOM test. The second test uses normal scores of noise ratio.
the ranks of scale transformations of the observations
Schilling (1979) incorporated the ANOM tech-
as input to the ANOM.
nique in the grand-lot scheme of Simon to verify
Bernard and Wludyka (2001) and Wludyka and the homogeneity of a grand lot. This resulting ap-
Sa (2004) developed robust ANOM-type randomiza- proach simplies application of the grand-lot scheme
tion tests for variances in balanced and unbalanced and can be applied to attributes or variables data,
designs. Also, Wludyka (1999), Wludyka (2000), and is easy to use, and provides high levels of protec-
Wludyka and Sa (2002) developed a SAS package to tion economically and a reduction in sample size of
perform the above ANOM-type tests. 80%. Enrick (1976) applied ANOM to wire-life data
obtained from a three-way factorial design. Ott and
Snee (1973) applied the ANOM method to identify
Comparison of Correlation Coecients the dierences in a circular multiple-head speed ma-
chine, which runs continuously. All the heads are in-
Rao and Pran Kumar (2002) developed ANOM- tended to perform the same operation, which may
type graphical procedures for testing the equality be lling a bottle, can, or box to a desired aver-
of several correlation coecients. In the case of un- age or minimum. Tomlinson and Lavigna (1983) gave
equal sample sizes, the decision lines using Fishers an application of ANOM for percent defective data
Z-transformation are computed as obtained from the silicon crystal growing, the rst
processing step in semiconductor manufacturing. Ull-
z w Z/2k SE(zi z w ), man (1989) has expanded the area of application by

Journal of Quality Technology Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005

 ANALYSIS OF MEANSA REVIEW 313

providing factors for ANOM on ranges suitable for

use in the analysis of Taguchi signal-to-noise ratio.
Parra and Loaiza (2003) applied the ANOM tech-
nique to a case-study data from chemical and phar-
maceutical industries and demonstrated the value of
the application of ANOM as a powerful visualization
and communication tool, to complement the conven-
tional analysis of nested designs.

General
Ott (1975), Wadsworth et al. (1986), Wheeler
(1987), Ryan (1989), and Mason et al. (1989) pre-
sented some of the ANOM techniques with illustra-
tive examples in their books. Some related papers
in this area are Ohta (1981), Snee (1983), Wescott
(1983), L. S. Nelson (1983b), Nelson (1988b), Guir-
guis and Tobias (2004).

Numerical Example
This example demonstrates the importance of
ANOMs graphical technique using published data. A
product-development engineer is interested to know
whether the cotton weight percentage in a synthetic FIGURE 1. ANOM X-Chart.
ber used to make cloth for mens shirts aects the
tensile strength of the ber. An experiment was con-
UDL = 19.05.
ducted with ve levels of cotton weight percentage
(15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, and 35%), each with ve repli-
5. The ANOM X-chart with the above decision
cations and the data of tensile strengths as shown in
lines is drawn in Figure 1 and the sample means
Table 3.1 of Montgomery (2001, p. 62). Applying the
xi (i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are plotted against the deci-
ANOVA method to the data, it was reported in Ta-
sion lines.
ble 3.4 of Montgomery (2001, p. 71) that HO (the
cotton weight percentage does not aect the tensile
From Figure 1, we observe that some of the points
strength), is rejected at a 1% level of signicance.
lie outside the decision lines. Hence, HO is rejected
Applying the ANOM graphical method of Nelson in this method also. Further, the ANOM X-chart
(1982) to the same data, we have the following re- gives additional information that the mean tensile
sults: strengths at 15% and 35% levels of cotton weight
lie below the LDL and the mean tensile strength at
1. k = 5, n = 5, = 0.01, we have h = 3.53.
30% level of cotton weight lies above the UDL. That
2. The sample means and the overall mean are means the tensile strengths are less at 15% and 35%
x1 = 9.8, x2 = 15.4, x3 = 17.6, x4 = 21.6, levels and more at 30% level when compared with
the overall mean. This information may be useful to
x5 = 10.8, and x= 15.04. the development engineer and the management for
making further managerial decisions.
3. The sample variances and the pooled standard
deviation are
Concluding Remarks
s21 = 11.2, s22 = 9.8, s23 = 4.3, s24 = 6.8,
The classical tests available in the literature for
s25 = 8.2, and S = 2.84. solving certain problems and the parallel ANOM
graphical procedures developed for the same pur-
4. The lower decision line (LDL) and the upper
pose convey the same information when the null hy-
decision line (UDL) are
pothesis is not rejected. When the null hypothesis
LDL = 11.03, is rejected, the classical tests reveal the statistically

Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005 www.asq.org

314
signicant dierences among the populations being
compared while the ANOM procedures not only re-
veal the statistically signicant dierences but also
identify those populations leading to these dier-
ences. Hence, this additional information from the
graphical procedures is useful to the nonstatistician
or the practitioner for making further managerial de-
cisions.
Even though Professor Ott and others developed
ANOM procedures keeping in mind the practitioners
from industrial sector, the applications of ANOM can
be extended to the data from agriculture, biology, so-
cial sciences, and other areas wherever ANOVA and
other classical tests can be used.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the two referees for their help-
ful suggestions and comments, which helped in im-
proving the nal version of the paper, and the editor
for his encouragement.
References and Bibliography
Bakir, S. T. (1989). Analysis of Means Using Ranks. Com-
munications in StatisticsSimulation and Computation 18,
pp. 757776.
Bakir, S. T. (1994). Analysis of Means Using Ranks for the
Randomized Complete Block Design. Communications in
StatisticsSimulation and Computation 23, pp. 547568.
Bartlett, M. S. and Kendall, D. G. (1946). The Statisti-
cal Analysis of Variance-Heterogeneity and the Logarithmic
Transformation. Journal of Royal Statistical Society 8, pp.
128138.
Bernard, A. J. and Wludyka, P. S. (2001). Robust I-
Sample Analysis of Means Type Randomization Tests for
Variances. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simula-
tion 69, pp. 5788.
Bratcher, T. L.; Moran, M. A.; and Zimmer, W. J. (1970).
Tables of Sample Sizes in the Analysis of Variance. Journal
of Quality Technology 2, pp. 156164.
Budsaba, K.; Smith, C. E.; and Riviere, J. E. (2000). Com-
pass Plots: A Combination of Star Plot and Analysis of
Means to Visualize Signicant Interactions in Complex Tox-
icology Studies. Toxicology Methods 10, pp. 313332.
Craig, C. C. (1947). Control Charts Versus the Analysis of
Variance in Process Control by Variables. Industrial Qual-
ity Control 3, pp. 1416.
Dudewicz, E. J. and Nelson, P. R. (2003). Heteroscedastic
Analysis of Means (HANOM). American Journal of Math-
ematical and Management Sciences 23, pp. 143181.
Enrick, N. L. (1976). An Analysis of Means in a Three-Way
Factorial. Journal of Quality Technology 8, pp. 189196.
Farnum, N. R. (2004). Analysis of Means Tables Using
Mathematical Processors. Quality Engineering 16, pp. 399
405.
Guirguis, G. H. and Tobias, R. D. (2004). On the Compu-
tation of the Distribution for the Analysis of Means. Com-
munications in StatisticsSimulation and computation 33,
pp. 861887.
Journal of Quality Technology
C. V. RAO
Halperin, M.; Greenhouse, S. W.; Cornfield, J.; and Za-
lokar, J. (1955). Tables of Percentage Points for the Stu-
dentized Maximum Absolute Deviate in Normal Samples.
Journal of American Statistical Association 50, pp. 185195.
Mason, R. L.; Gunst, R. F.; and Hess, J. L. (1989). Sta-
tistical Design and Analysis of Experiments. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Montgomery, D. C. (2001). Design and Analysis of Experi-
ments, 5th edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Nelson, L. S. (1974). Factors for the Analysis of Means.
Journal Quality Technology 6, pp. 175181.
Nelson, L. S. (1983a). Exact Critical Values for Use with
the Analysis of Means. Journal of Quality Technology 15,
pp. 4044.
Nelson, L. S. (1983b). Transformations for Attribute Data.
Journal of Quality Technology 15, pp. 5556.
Nelson, P. R. (1982). Exact Critical Points for the Anal-
ysis of Means. Communications in StatisticsTheory and
Methods 11, pp. 699709.
Nelson, P. R. (1983a). A Comparison of Sample Sizes for the
Analysis of Means and the Analysis of Variance. Journal of
Quality Technology 15, pp. 3339.
Nelson, P. R. (1983b). The Analysis of Means for Balanced
Experimental Designs. Journal of Quality Technology 15,
pp. 4554.
Nelson, P. R. (1985). Power Curves for the Analysis of
Means. Technometrics 27, pp. 6573.
Nelson, P. R. (1988a). Testing for Interactions Using the
Analysis of Means. Technometrics 30, pp. 5361.
Nelson, P. R. (1988b). Application of the Analysis of
Means. Conference Proceedings of the SAS Users Group
International, pp. 225230.
Nelson, P. R. (1993). Additional Uses for the Analysis of
Means and Extended Tables of Critical Values. Technomet-
rics 35, pp. 6171.
Nelson, P. R. and Dudewicz, E. J. (2002). Exact Analysis
of Means with Unequal Variances. Technometrics 44, pp.
152160.
Ohta, H. (1981). A Procedure for Pooling Data by the Anal-
ysis of Means. Journal of Quality Technology 13, pp. 115
119.
Ott, E. R. (1967). Analysis of MeansA Graphical Proce-
dure. Industrial Quality Control 24, pp. 101109.
Ott, E. R. (1975). Process Quality Control. McGraw-Hill Ko-
gakusha Ltd., Tokyo.
Ott, E. R. and Snee, R. D. (1973). Identifying Useful Dif-
ferences in a Multiple-Head Machine. Journal of Quality
Technology 5, pp. 4757.
Parra, M. G. and Loaiza, P. R. (2003). Application of
Analysis of Means (ANOM) to Nested Designs for Improving
the Visualization and Understanding of the Sources of Vari-
ation of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Processes. Quality
Engineering 15, pp. 663670.
Pearson, E. S. and Hartley, H. O. (1951). Charts of the
Power Function of the Analysis of Variance Tests, Derived
from the Non-Central F -Distribution. Biometrika 38, pp.
112130.
Pran Kumar, M. and Rao, C. V. (1998). ANOM-Type
Graphical Method for Testing the Equality of Several
Variances. Communications in StatisticsSimulation and
Computation 27, pp. 459468.
Ramig, P. F. (1983). Applications of the Analysis of Means.
Journal of Quality Technology 15, pp. 1925.
Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005
 ANALYSIS OF MEANSA REVIEW
Rao, C. V. and Harikrishna, S. (1997). A Graphical
Method for Testing the Equality of Several Variances. Jour-
nal of Applied Statistics 24, pp. 279287.
Rao, C. V. and Pran Kumar, M. (2002). ANOM-Type
Graphical Methods for Testing the Equality of Several Cor-
relation Coecients. Gujarat Statistical Review 29, pp. 47
56.
Ryan, T. P. (1989). Statistical Methods for Quality Improve-
ment. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Scheffe, H. (1947). The Relationship of Control Charts to
the Analysis of Variance and Chi-Square Tests. Journal of
the American Statistical Association 42, pp. 425431.
Schilling, E. G. (1973a). A Systematic Approach to the
Analysis of Means, Part I: Analysis of Treatment Eects.
Journal of Quality Technology 5, pp. 93108.
Schilling, E. G. (1973b). A Systematic Approach to the
Analysis of Means, Part II. Analysis of Contrasts, Part III.
Analysis of Non-Normal Data. Journal of Quality Technol-
ogy 5, pp. 147159.
Schilling, E. G. (1979). A Simplied Graphical Grand Lot
Acceptance Sampling Procedure. Journal of Quality Tech-
nology 11, pp. 116127.
Schilling, E. G.; Schlotzer, G.; Schultz, H. E.; and
Sheesley, J. H. (1980). A FORTRAN Computer Program
for Analysis of Variance and Analysis of Means. Journal of
Quality Technology 12, pp. 106113.
Sheesley, J. H. (1980). Comparison of k Samples Involving
Variables or Attribute Data Using the Analysis of Means.
Journal of Quality Technology 12, pp. 4752.
Sheesley, J. H. (1981). Simplied Factors for Analysis of
Means When the Standard Deviation Is Estimated from the
Range. Journal of Quality Technology 13, pp. 184185.
Snee, R. D. (1983). A Tribute to Ellis. R. Ott. Journal of
Quality Technology 15, pp. 12.
Subramani, J. (1992). Analysis of Means for Experimen-
tal Designs with Missing Observations. Communications in
StatisticsTheory and Methods 21, pp. 20452057.
Tomlinson, L. H. and Lavigna, R. J. (1983) . Silicon Crys-
tal TerminationAn Application of ANOM for Percent De-
fective Data. Journal of Quality Technology 15, pp. 2632.
Vol. 37, No. 4, October 2005
315
Ullman, N. R. (1989). The Analysis of Means (ANOM) for
Signal and Noise. Journal of Quality Technology 21, pp.
111127.
Wadsworth, H. M.; Stephens, K. S.; and Godfrey, A. B.
(1986). Modern Methods for Quality Control and Improve-
ment. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Wescott, M. E. (1983). In MemoriamEllis Raymond Ott
19061981. Journal of Quality Technology 15, pp. 57.
Wheeler, D. J. (1987). Understanding Industrial Experimen-
tation. SPC Press, Knoxville, TN.
Wilson, E. B. and Hilferty, M. M. (1931). The Distri-
bution of Chi-Square. Proceedings of National Academy of
Sciences, USA 17, pp. 684.
Wludyka, P. S. (1999). Using SAS to Perform the Analysis
of Means for Variances Test. Conference Proceedings of the
South East SAS Users Group, pp. 420425.
Wludyka, P. S. (2000). Using SAS to Perform Robust I-
Sample Analysis of Means Type Randomization Tests for
Variances. Conference Proceedings of the South East SAS
Users Group, pp. 537542.
Wludyka, P. S. and Nelson, P. R. (1997a). An Analysis-of-
Means-Type Test for Variances from Normal Populations.
Technometrics 39, pp. 274285.
Wludyka, P. S. and Nelson, P. R. (1997b). Analysis of
Means Type Tests for Variances Using Jackkning and Sub-
sampling. American Journal of Mathematical and Manage-
ment Sciences 17, pp. 3160.
Wludyka, P. S. and Nelson, P. R. (1999). Two Non-
Parametric, Analysis-of-Means-Type Tests for Homogeneity
of Variances. Journal of Applied Statistics 26, pp. 243256.
Wludyka, P. S.; Nelson, P. R.; and Silva, P. R. (2001).
Power Curves for the Analysis of Means for Variances.
Journal of Quality Technology 33, pp. 6065.
Wludyka, P. S. and Sa, P. (2002). Using SAS to Perform
Robust I-Sample Analysis of Means Type Randomization
Tests for Variances for Unbalanced Designs. Conference
Proceedings of the SAS Users Group International.
Wludyka, P. S. and Sa, P. (2004). Robust I-Sample Analy-
sis of Means Type Randomization Tests for Variances for Un-
balanced Designs. Journal of Statistical Computation and
Simulation 74, pp. 701726.
www.asq.org