Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 24 February 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Behavioral Ecology
- Vol. 19 (3) , 690-693
- https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arn020
Abstract
Researchers are commonly in a situation, often after an experiment, where they want to compare the central tendency of some measure across a number of groups. If the number of groups is simply 2, then there is little controversy as to the appropriate analysis, with normally a t-test or a nonparametric equivalent being adopted. If the number of groups is greater than 2, most elementary statistical textbooks suggest performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the null hypothesis that all the groups are the same and, if this null hypothesis is rejected, implementing some post hoc testing to identify which groups are significantly different from which other groups.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologistsBiological Reviews, 2007
- Controlling the false discovery rate and increasing statistical power in ecological studiesÉcoscience, 2006
- StatisticsPublished by Wiley ,2005
- Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests than are power calculationsBehavioral Ecology, 2003
- Experimental Design and Data Analysis for BiologistsPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2002
- Multiple Comparison ProceduresPublished by SAGE Publications ,1993
- Comparisons of Treatments After an Analysis of Variance in EcologyEcological Monographs, 1989