ANOVA, MANOVA, My Black Hen
- 1 August 1990
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in Archives of General Psychiatry
- Vol. 47 (8) , 775-778
- https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1990.01810200083012
Abstract
The article by Ekstrom et al1has two very different messages: statistical reporting needs to be improved, and a common method of analysis (repeated-measures analysis of variance [RM ANOVA]) appears to be improperly used, at the expense of a possibly more appropriate technique (multi See also p 770.variate ANOVA [MANOVA]). The reader whose eyes do not immediately light up at the thought of a bare-knuckle statistical brawl may want to know what the fuss is about. Who needs all those details, and why should I care if my statistician takes his or her ANOVA straight, without an M? WHY REPORT THE DETAILS? In textbooks and classrooms, methodologists remind future experimentalists that the design of investigations and analysis of data work like the two oars of a rowboat: neglect one and you go in circles. To design is to plan, to have an intention and a goal. When it isKeywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Statistical Analysis of Repeated Measures in Psychiatric ResearchArchives of General Psychiatry, 1990
- Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical JournalsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1988
- Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical JournalsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1988
- Reporting on Methods in Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1982