Type I error in multiple comparison tests in analysis of variance

IF 1.2 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRONOMY Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy. Pub Date : 2022-11-22 DOI:10.4025/actasciagron.v45i1.57742
Josiane Rodrigues, S. Piedade, I. A. Lara, Francisco Humberto Henrique
{"title":"Type I error in multiple comparison tests in analysis of variance","authors":"Josiane Rodrigues, S. Piedade, I. A. Lara, Francisco Humberto Henrique","doi":"10.4025/actasciagron.v45i1.57742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a hypothesis test, a researcher initially fixes a type I error rate, that is, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true. In the case of means tests, it is important to present a type I error that is equal to the nominal pre-fixed level, such that this error remains unchanged across various scenarios, including the number of treatments, number of repetitions, and coefficient of variation. The purpose of this study is to analyse and compare the following multiple comparison tests for the control of both conditional and unconditional type I error rates, depending on a significant F-test in the analysis of variance: Tukey, Duncan, Fisher’s least significant difference, Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK), and Scheffé. As an application, we present a motivation study and develop a simulation study using the Monte Carlo method for a total of 64 scenarios. In each simulated scenario, we estimate the comparison-wise and experiment-wise error rates, conditional and unconditional on a significant result of the overall F-test of analysis of variance for each of the five multiple comparison tests evaluated. The results indicate that the application of the means tests based only on the significance of the F-test should be considered when determining the error rates, as this can change them. In addition, we find that Fisher’s test controls for the comparison-wise error rate, the Tukey and SNK tests control for the experiment-wise error rate, and the Duncan and Fisher tests control for the conditional experiment-wise error rate. Scheffé’s test does not control for any of the error rates considered.","PeriodicalId":56373,"journal":{"name":"Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy.","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy.","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v45i1.57742","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In a hypothesis test, a researcher initially fixes a type I error rate, that is, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true. In the case of means tests, it is important to present a type I error that is equal to the nominal pre-fixed level, such that this error remains unchanged across various scenarios, including the number of treatments, number of repetitions, and coefficient of variation. The purpose of this study is to analyse and compare the following multiple comparison tests for the control of both conditional and unconditional type I error rates, depending on a significant F-test in the analysis of variance: Tukey, Duncan, Fisher’s least significant difference, Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK), and Scheffé. As an application, we present a motivation study and develop a simulation study using the Monte Carlo method for a total of 64 scenarios. In each simulated scenario, we estimate the comparison-wise and experiment-wise error rates, conditional and unconditional on a significant result of the overall F-test of analysis of variance for each of the five multiple comparison tests evaluated. The results indicate that the application of the means tests based only on the significance of the F-test should be considered when determining the error rates, as this can change them. In addition, we find that Fisher’s test controls for the comparison-wise error rate, the Tukey and SNK tests control for the experiment-wise error rate, and the Duncan and Fisher tests control for the conditional experiment-wise error rate. Scheffé’s test does not control for any of the error rates considered.
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
方差分析中多重比较检验中的第一类误差
在假设检验中,研究人员最初固定了一个I型错误率,即在零假设成立的情况下拒绝零假设的概率。在平均数调查的情况下,重要的是要提出与名义预先固定水平相等的第一类误差,以便该误差在各种情况下保持不变,包括处理次数、重复次数和变异系数。本研究的目的是分析和比较以下多项比较检验,以控制条件和无条件I型错误率,取决于方差分析中的显著f检验:Tukey, Duncan, Fisher 's least significant difference, Student-Newman-Keuls (SNK)和scheff。作为一个应用,我们提出了一个动机研究,并开发了一个模拟研究,使用蒙特卡罗方法共64个场景。在每个模拟场景中,我们根据评估的五个多重比较测试中每一个方差分析的总体f检验的显著结果估计比较和实验方面的错误率,条件和无条件。结果表明,在确定错误率时应考虑仅基于f检验显著性的均值测试的应用,因为这可能会改变错误率。此外,我们发现Fisher的比较误差率检验控制,Tukey和SNK的实验误差率检验控制,Duncan和Fisher的条件实验误差率检验控制。scheff的测试没有控制所考虑的任何错误率。
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
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy. Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agronomy and Crop Science
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original articles in all areas of Agronomy, including soil sciences, agricultural entomology, soil fertility and manuring, soil physics, physiology of cultivated plants, phytopathology, phyto-health, phytotechny, genesis, morphology and soil classification, management and conservation of soil, integrated management of plant pests, vegetal improvement, agricultural microbiology, agricultural parasitology, production and processing of seeds.
期刊最新文献
A novel fuzzy approach to identify the phenotypic adaptability of common bean lines Genetic improvement of black oats: a scientometric review New evidence for in vitro conservation of nodal segments of the passion fruit ‘UENF Rio Dourado’ (Passiflora edulis Sims) Morphophysiological changes in black pepper under different water supplies Bacillus amyloliquefaciens PKM16 acts as an antagonist of white mold and an inducer of defense enzymes in tomato plants
×
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