Multiple comparison test by Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD): Do the confident level control type I error

A pretest-posttest design was used to determine the effects of auditory input, visual input, auditory-visual input, and no input on prose learning. The principal result of a multivariate analysis of covariance combined with a multiple-comparison test was a significant difference in favor of auditory input. This difference seemed to be confined to definition items which were the substance of the input as opposed to application items which were not involved explicitly in the input. A difference between the present study and earlier ones was that a shorter exposure of stimuli was employed in the present study, which may have led to results favoring auditory input in contrast to earlier findings favoring visual input.

Download Full-text

Pairwise Multiple Comparison Test Procedures: An Update for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychologists

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology ◽

10.1207/s15374424jccp3303_19 ◽

2004 ◽

Vol 33 (3) ◽

pp. 623-645 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

H. J. Keselman ◽

Robert A. Cribbie ◽

Burt Holland

Keyword(s):

Child And Adolescent ◽

Multiple Comparison ◽

Test Procedures ◽

Comparison Test ◽

Multiple Comparison Test

Download Full-text

Stepwise and Simultaneous Multiple Comparison Procedures of Repeated Measures’ Means

Journal of Educational Statistics ◽

10.3102/10769986019002127 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 19 (2) ◽

pp. 127-162 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

H. J. Keselman

Keyword(s):

Repeated Measures ◽

Type I Error ◽

Multiple Comparison ◽

Multivariate Normality ◽

Type I ◽

Stepwise Procedures ◽

Multiple Comparison Procedures ◽

Multisample Sphericity

Stepwise multiple comparison procedures (MCPs) for repeated measures’ means based on the methods of Hayter (1986) , Hochberg (1988) , Peritz (1970) , Ryan (1960) - Welsch (1977a) , Shaffer (1979 , 1986) , and Welsch (1977a) were compared for their overall familywise rates of Type I error when multisample sphericity and multivariate normality were not satisfied. Robust stepwise procedures were identified by Keselman, Keselman, and Shaffer (1991) with respect to three definitions of power. On average, Welsh’s (1977a) step-up procedure was found to be the most powerful MCP.

Download Full-text

Repeated Measures Multiple Comparison Procedures: Effects of Violating Multisample Sphericity in Unbalanced Designs

Journal of Educational Statistics ◽

10.3102/10769986013003215 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 215-226 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

H. J. Keselman ◽

Joanne C. Keselman

Keyword(s):

Repeated Measures ◽

Type I Error ◽

Multiple Comparison ◽

Type I ◽

Type I Errors ◽

Unbalanced Designs ◽

Bonferroni Procedure ◽

Weighted Means ◽

Multiple Comparison Procedures ◽

Multisample Sphericity

Two Tukey multiple comparison procedures as well as a Bonferroni and multivariate approach were compared for their rates of Type I error and any-pairs power when multisample sphericity was not satisfied and the design was unbalanced. Pairwise comparisons of unweighted and weighted repeated measures means were computed. Results indicated that heterogenous covariance matrices in combination with unequal group sizes resulted in substantially inflated rates of Type I error for all MCPs involving comparisons of unweighted means. For tests of weighted means, both the Bonferroni and a multivariate critical value limited the number of Type I errors; however, the Bonferroni procedure provided a more powerful test, particularly when the number of repeated measures treatment levels was large.

Download Full-text