Selection of pairwise multiple comparison procedures for parametric and nonparametric analysis of variance models.

1984 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Zwick ◽  
Leonard A. Marascuilo
1985 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 1142-1148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl W. Mize ◽  
Richard C. Schultz

Many researchers set up an experiment, make measurements, do an analysis of variance, calculate the mean response for each treatment, and then try to decide if the treatment means are significantly different and why. Duncan's multiple-range test is frequently used to test the difference among treatment means. It is, however, only one of a number of techniques that can be used to examine treatment means. Some researchers are unaware of the different techniques and that the interpretation of the results of an experiment can be strongly influenced by the technique used. In fact, using an inappropriate technique can lead to making incorrect recommendations and to completely missing major treatment effects. Selection of the appropriate technique to use for a particular experiment depends upon the nature of the treatments and the objectives of the research. This paper discusses four techniques (ranking treatment means, multiple comparison procedures, fitting response models, and using contrasts to make planned comparisons) that can be used to examine treatment means and presents examples of each one.


1986 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Hall ◽  
Kevin D. Bird

Methods are outlined for performing simultaneous multiple comparisons between groups when the dependent variable is one in which subjects are assigned to one of two or more categories. These methods provide tests which are analogous to Scheffe- and Bonferroni-adjusted tests of contrasts in the analysis of variance. Examples are provided of each of these procedures.


2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 556-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Kozak

Statistics may be intricate. In practical data analysis many researchers stick to the most common methods, not even trying to find out whether these methods are appropriate for their data and whether other methods might be more useful. In this paper I attempt to show that when analyzing even simple one-way factorial experiments, a lot of issues need to be considered. A classical method to analyze such data is the analysis of variance, quite likely the most often used statistical method in agricultural, biological, ecological and environmental studies. I suspect this is why this method is quite often applied inappropriately: since the method is that common, it does not require too much consideration-this is how some may think. An incorrect analysis may provide false interpretation and conclusions, so one should pay careful attention to which approach to use in the analysis. I do not mean that one should apply difficult or complex statistics; I rather mean that one should apply a correct method that offers what one needs. So, various problems concerned with the analysis of variance and other approaches to analyze such data are discussed in the paper, including checking within-group normality and homocedasticity, analyzing experiments when any of these assumptions is violated, outliers presence, multiple comparison procedures, and other issues.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Umamaheswari Elango ◽  
Ganesan Sivarajan ◽  
Abirami Manoharan ◽  
Subramanian Srikrishna

Purpose Generator maintenance scheduling (GMS) is an essential task for electric power utilities as the periodical maintenance activity enhances the lifetime and also ensures the reliable and continuous operation of generating units. Though numerous meta-heuristic algorithms have been reported for the GMS solution, enhancing the existing techniques or developing new optimization procedure is still an interesting research task. The meta-heuristic algorithms are population based and the selection of their algorithmic parameters influences the quality of the solution. This paper aims to propose statistical tests guided meta-heuristic algorithm for solving the GMS problems. Design/methodology/approach The intricacy characteristics of the GMS problem in power systems necessitate an efficient and robust optimization tool. Though several meta-heuristic algorithms have been applied to solve the chosen power system operational problem, tuning of their control parameters is a protracting process. To prevail over the previously mentioned drawback, the modern meta-heuristic algorithm, namely, ant lion optimizer (ALO), is chosen as the optimization tool for solving the GMS problem. Findings The meta-heuristic algorithms are population based and require proper selection of algorithmic parameters. In this work, the ANOVA (analysis of variance) tool is proposed for selecting the most feasible decisive parameters in algorithm domain, and the statistical tests-based validation of solution quality is described. The parametric and non-parametric statistical tests are also performed to validate the selection of ALO against the various competing algorithms. The numerical and statistical results confirm that ALO is a promising tool for solving the GMS problems. Originality/value As a first attempt, ALO is applied to solve the GMS problem. Moreover, the ANOVA-based parameter selection is proposed and the statistical tests such as Wilcoxon signed rank and one-way ANOVA are conducted to validate the applicability of the intended optimization tool. The contribution of the paper can be summarized in two folds: the ANOVA-based ALO for GMS applications and statistical tests-based performance evaluation of intended algorithm.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document