Plotting to check Homoskedasticity assumption for repeated-measures ANOVA in R I've run a fully within-subjects repeated-measures ANOVA using the aov() function. My dependent variable is not normally distributed, so I'm very interested in running assumption tests on my analysis. It seems that just calling plot() on the output doesn't work for repeated-measures, so I've manually taken the residuals and the fitted values for a model of interest, and have plotted them against each other. I'm assuming that this is how I would plot to test for the assumption of Homoskedasticity.
The plot comes out with 2 vertical bands (please see the image below). It turns out the fitted values are all centred around 2 values (although according to == they are not exactly equal), where one is the negative of the other.
I have 2 questions:
1) Is this the correct way to manually test the assumption homoskedasticity? If not, how would I go about it from repeated-measures designs (since just calling plot() doesn't work)?
2) If it is correct, what is this plot telling me? Why are the fitted values so clustered? What can I conclude from it?
Thanks heaps for any input here. Also, if you know of better ways to check (preferably plot) for assumptions in rm-ANOVAs, that would be useful information as well.
I've included some mock data here to replicate the scenario:
#Create mock data (there's probably a more efficient way to do this.. would also be nice to know! :) )
p <- sort(rep(1:20,8))
y <- rep(rep(1:2,4),20)
z <- rep(rep(c(1,1,2,2),2),20)
w <- rep(c(1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2),20)
x <- rnorm(160,10,2)

d <- data.frame(x,p=factor(p),y=factor(y),z=factor(z),w=factor(w))

#Run repeated-measures ANOVA
ex.aov <- aov(x ~ y*z*w + Error(p/(y*z*w)), d)

#Try to plot full object (doesn't work)
plot(ex.aov)

#Try to plot section of object (doesn't work)
plot(ex.aov[["p:y:z"]])

#Plot residuals against fitted (custom "skedasticity" plot - works)
plot(residuals(ex.aov[["p:y:z"]])~fitted(ex.aov[["p:y:z"]]))


Begin Edit
In light of the information provided by @Stefan , I've added some additional details below, using the improved data structure he proposed:
# Set seed to make it reproducible
set.seed(12)

#New variable names and generation
subj <- sort(factor(rep(1:20,8)))
x1 <- rep(c('A','B'),80)
x2 <- rep(c('A','B'),20,each=2)
x3 <- rep(c('A','B'),10, each=4)
outcome <- rnorm(80,10,2)

d3 <- data.frame(outcome,subj,x1,x2,x3)

#Repeated measures ANOVA
ex.aov <- aov(outcome ~ x1*x2*x3 + Error(subj/(x1*x2*x3)), d3)

#proj function
ex.aov.proj <- proj(ex.aov)

# Check for normality by using last error stratum
qqnorm(ex.aov.proj[[9]][, "Residuals"])
# Check for heteroscedasticity by using last error stratum
plot(ex.aov.proj[[9]][, "Residuals"])

The resulting plots are below:


Can anyone interpret the images above (especially the last one)? It looks like there is clustering and pattern structure. Can it be used to infer the presence of heteroskedasticity?
 A: I'm assuming that a model which was fitted using the Error() function within aov() won't work when using in plot() because you will get more than one error stratum from which you can choose. Now according to this information here, one should use the proj() function which will give you the residuals for each error stratum, which then can be used for diagnostic plots.
Edit 1 start
More information regarding multistratum models and the proj() function is given in Venables and Ripley, page 284 (but start from page 281): Residuals in multistratum analyses: Projections. In the second sentence they write (I highlighted in bold):

Thus fitted(oats.aov[[4]]) and resid(oats.aov[[4]]) are vectors of length 54 representing fitted values and residuals from the last stratum, based on 54 orthonormal linear functions of the original data vector. It is not possible to associate them uniquely with the plots of the original experiment.
  The function proj takes a fitted model object and finds the projections of
  the original data vector onto the subspaces defined by each line in the analysis of variance tables (including, for multistratum objects, the suppressed table with the grand mean only). The result is a list of matrices, one for each stratum, where the column names for each are the component names from the analysis of variance
  tables.

For your example that means:
ex.aov.proj <- proj(ex.aov)

# Check number of strata 
summary(ex.aov.proj)

# Check for normality by using last error stratum
qqnorm(ex.aov.proj[[9]][, "Residuals"])
# Check for heteroscedasticity by using last error stratum
plot(ex.aov.proj[[9]][, "Residuals"])

However, this will also lead into plots which I cannot fully interpret (especially the second one).
In their case, the last stratum was the Within stratum. Since your model cannot estimate this (presumably due to your error term), I am not sure if simply using your last stratum is valid.
Hopefully someone else can clarify.
Edit 1 end
Edit 2 start
According to this source checking residuals to assess normality and heteroscedasticity should be performed without the Error() function.

In order to check assumptions, you need to not use the error term. You can add the term without error, but the F tests are wrong. Assumption checking is OK, however.

This seems reasonable to me but I hope someone else could clarify.
Edit 2 end
My alternative suggestion:
First, I changed your dataset slightly and set a seed to make it reproducible (might be handy for some problems you have in the future):
# Set seed to make it reproducible
set.seed(12)

# I changed the names of your variables to make them easier to remember
# I also deleted a few nested `rep()` commands. Have a look at the `each=` argument.
subj <- sort(factor(rep(1:20,8)))
x1 <- rep(c('A','B'),80)
x2 <- rep(c('A','B'),20,each=2)
x3 <- rep(c('A','B'),10, each=4)
outcome <- rnorm(80,10,2)

d3 <- data.frame(outcome,subj,x1,x2,x3)

Second, I used a linear mixed-effects model instead since you have repeated measures and hence a random term you can use:
require(lme4)
# I specified `subj` as random term to account for the repeated measurements on subject.
m.lmer<-lmer(outcome ~ x1*x2*x3 + (1|subj), data = d3)
summary(m.lmer)

# Check for heteroscedasticity
plot(m.lmer)


# or
boxplot(residuals(m.lmer) ~ d3$x1 + d3$x2 + d3$x3)


# Check for normality
qqnorm(residuals(m.lmer))


Using the afex package you can also get the fixed effects in ANOVA table format (you can also use the Anova() function from the car package as another option):
require(afex)
mixed(outcome ~ x1*x2*x3 + (1|subj), data = d3, method="LRT")

Fitting 8 (g)lmer() models:
[........]
    Effect df    Chisq p.value
1       x1  1     0.04     .84
2       x2  1     2.53     .11
3       x3  1  7.68 **    .006
4    x1:x2  1  8.34 **    .004
5    x1:x3  1 10.51 **    .001
6    x2:x3  1     0.31     .58
7 x1:x2:x3  1     0.12     .73

Check ?mixed for the various options you can choose. Also  regarding mixed models, there is a lot of information here on Cross Validated.
A: Full disclaimer: I love using R for many different analyses, but I do not like doing ANOVAs in R.
Question 1: In the analytic context of ANOVAs, I'm more familiar with evaluating this assumption via tests of homogeneity of variances, vs. plotting homo/heteroscedasticity and visually evaluating it. Though there are multiple tests of homogeneity of variance, the one I see the most is Levene's test. In R , it appears you can do this via the car package using the leveneTest function. 
Based on your data it would look like this: leveneTest(x ~ y*z*w, d). Note, that I don't think you are able to specify the repeated-measures error structure in this function, and in all honesty, I'm not sure if/to what extent that matters for Levene's test. Comparing with other stastical analysis software, it seems that there is some variability in terms of how Levene's test in repeated-measures ANOVA is carried out. SPSS, for example, provides separate between-group Levene's tests for each level of your repeated-measure, whereas the leveneTest function provides a comprehensive test of all levels of all variables--other software might have alternative approaches too. Anyways, the SPSS approach also seems to ignore the dependency of the data by only evaluating the between-group homogeneity of variance. 
Question 2: If you're going to use a test of homogeneity of variance--Levene's or otherwise--it would probably be more informative to create simple bar-plots of the variances by each level of your variables (because that is what your homogeneity of variance test is explicitly evaluating). You could do this easily by estimating the variance of your outcome for every combination of your variables' levels, and then plotting them in base R, or  using the ggplot2 package. 
