Taking Parametric Assumptions Seriously: Arguments for the Use of Welch’s F-test instead of the Classical F-test in One-Way ANOVA

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL International Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2019-08-01 DOI:10.5334/IRSP.198
Marie Delacre, C. Leys, Youri L. Mora, D. Lakens
{"title":"Taking Parametric Assumptions Seriously: Arguments for the Use of Welch’s F-test instead of the Classical F-test in One-Way ANOVA","authors":"Marie Delacre, C. Leys, Youri L. Mora, D. Lakens","doi":"10.5334/IRSP.198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Student’s t-test and classical F-test ANOVA rely on the assumptions that two or more samples are independent, and that independent and identically distributed residuals are normal and have equal variances between groups. We focus on the assumptions of normality and equality of variances, and argue that these assumptions are often unrealistic in the field of psychology. We underline the current lack of attention to these assumptions through an analysis of researchers’ practices. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we illustrate the consequences of performing the classic parametric F-test for ANOVA when the test assumptions are not met on the Type I error rate and statistical power. Under realistic deviations from the assumption of equal variances, the classic F-test can yield severely biased results and lead to invalid statistical inferences. We examine two common alternatives to the F-test, namely the Welch’s ANOVA (W-test) and the Brown-Forsythe test (F*-test). Our simulations show that under a range of realistic scenarios, the W-test is a better alternative and we therefore recommend using the W-test by default when comparing means. We provide a detailed example explaining how to perform the W-test in SPSS and R. We summarize our conclusions in practical recommendations that researchers can use to improve their statistical practices.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"129","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/IRSP.198","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 129

Abstract

Student’s t-test and classical F-test ANOVA rely on the assumptions that two or more samples are independent, and that independent and identically distributed residuals are normal and have equal variances between groups. We focus on the assumptions of normality and equality of variances, and argue that these assumptions are often unrealistic in the field of psychology. We underline the current lack of attention to these assumptions through an analysis of researchers’ practices. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we illustrate the consequences of performing the classic parametric F-test for ANOVA when the test assumptions are not met on the Type I error rate and statistical power. Under realistic deviations from the assumption of equal variances, the classic F-test can yield severely biased results and lead to invalid statistical inferences. We examine two common alternatives to the F-test, namely the Welch’s ANOVA (W-test) and the Brown-Forsythe test (F*-test). Our simulations show that under a range of realistic scenarios, the W-test is a better alternative and we therefore recommend using the W-test by default when comparing means. We provide a detailed example explaining how to perform the W-test in SPSS and R. We summarize our conclusions in practical recommendations that researchers can use to improve their statistical practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认真对待参数假设:在单因素方差分析中使用韦尔奇f检验而不是经典f检验的争论
学生t检验和经典f检验ANOVA依赖于两个或多个样本是独立的假设,并且独立和同分布的残差是正态的,并且组间方差相等。我们关注正态性和方差相等的假设,并认为这些假设在心理学领域往往是不现实的。通过对研究人员实践的分析,我们强调目前缺乏对这些假设的关注。通过蒙特卡罗模拟,我们说明了在I型错误率和统计功率不满足检验假设时,对ANOVA进行经典参数f检验的后果。在实际偏离方差相等假设的情况下,经典的f检验会产生严重的偏倚结果,导致无效的统计推断。我们研究了F检验的两种常见替代方法,即韦尔奇方差分析(w检验)和布朗-福赛检验(F*检验)。我们的模拟表明,在一系列现实场景下,w检验是一个更好的选择,因此我们建议在比较均值时默认使用w检验。我们提供了一个详细的例子来解释如何在SPSS和r中执行w检验。我们将我们的结论总结为研究人员可以使用的实用建议,以改进他们的统计实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Review of Social Psychology (IRSP) is supported by the Association pour la Diffusion de la Recherche Internationale en Psychologie Sociale (A.D.R.I.P.S.). The International Review of Social Psychology publishes empirical research and theoretical notes in all areas of social psychology. Articles are written preferably in English but can also be written in French. The journal was created to reflect research advances in a field where theoretical and fundamental questions inevitably convey social significance and implications. It emphasizes scientific quality of its publications in every area of social psychology. Any kind of research can be considered, as long as the results significantly enhance the understanding of a general social psychological phenomenon and the methodology is appropriate.
期刊最新文献
Sunk Cost Effects for Time Versus Money: Replication and Extensions Registered Report of Soman (2001) Collective Behaviours: Mediation Mechanisms Underlying the Influence of Descriptive and Injunctive Norms An Unfinished Chapter: The Impact of Belgians’ Social Representations of Colonialism on their Present-Day Attitudes Towards Congolese People Living in Belgium How Neoliberal are You? Development and Validation of the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire Group Dominance, System Justification, and Hostile Classism: The Ideological Roots of the Perceived Socioeconomic Humanity Gap That Upholds the Income Gap
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1