<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Considering standard deviations in to DOE in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736383#M91720</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Not enough information/context to provide specific advice. &amp;nbsp;What exactly is the response variable? &amp;nbsp;% what? &amp;nbsp;For example, % yield is not a very useful response for understanding specific failure mechanisms (there are many things that could cause yield issues). &amp;nbsp;As Byron suggests, how are you calculating standard deviation? &amp;nbsp;Is this within treatment variation? &amp;nbsp;If so, the standard deviation is quantifying the effect of the noise changing within treatment. &amp;nbsp;You might certainly want to know if the model effects can impact this. &amp;nbsp;Also as Byron suggests, you will be able to model 2 responses: The mean (with increased precision as this will reduce the within treatment noise) and the standard deviation (or whatever transform you chose).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:58:01 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>statman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-03-19T14:58:01Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Considering standard deviations in to DOE</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736276#M91709</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I made a DOE with custom design of 6 runs. The 2 factors are continous and response Y is in %. When i have the results for Y. the standard deviations is quite huge. So, if i just input the mean value, I believe that it will not do justice to the design predictions. So what can i do to add these standard deviations to be considered by the model to get a better predictions.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:09:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736276#M91709</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mathej01</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-19T12:09:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Considering standard deviations in to DOE</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736288#M91712</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Could you post an example?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It sounds like you have repeated measures of each of the 6 runs?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Unless you want to analyze the data using a mixed model in JMP Pro, a good alternative is to use the mean of the repeated measures and the log-transformed standard deviation as Y's.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The mean of the replicates takes advantage of the central limits theorem to give you a better estimate from a noisy system, and the Stddev lets you see if there is a portion of the design space that has less noise.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:27:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736288#M91712</guid>
      <dc:creator>Byron_JMP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-19T12:27:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Considering standard deviations in to DOE</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736343#M91716</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;In addition to&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.jmp.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/4386"&gt;@Byron_JMP&lt;/a&gt;'s suggestion, you can also use the &lt;A href="https://www.jmp.com/support/help/en/17.0/#page/jmp/loglinear-variance-models.shtml#" target="_self"&gt;LogLinear Variance&lt;/A&gt; platform that is available through Analyze &amp;gt; Fit Model.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Were the factor ranges wide enough to elicit large effects?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 13:52:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736343#M91716</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-19T13:52:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Considering standard deviations in to DOE</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736383#M91720</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Not enough information/context to provide specific advice. &amp;nbsp;What exactly is the response variable? &amp;nbsp;% what? &amp;nbsp;For example, % yield is not a very useful response for understanding specific failure mechanisms (there are many things that could cause yield issues). &amp;nbsp;As Byron suggests, how are you calculating standard deviation? &amp;nbsp;Is this within treatment variation? &amp;nbsp;If so, the standard deviation is quantifying the effect of the noise changing within treatment. &amp;nbsp;You might certainly want to know if the model effects can impact this. &amp;nbsp;Also as Byron suggests, you will be able to model 2 responses: The mean (with increased precision as this will reduce the within treatment noise) and the standard deviation (or whatever transform you chose).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2024 14:58:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Considering-standard-deviations-in-to-DOE/m-p/736383#M91720</guid>
      <dc:creator>statman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-19T14:58:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

