Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: Bruce Weaver <bweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:29:03 -0000
On Oct 24, 8:57 pm, David Winsemius <doe_s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bruce Weaver <bwea...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote innews:1193226596.924562.47100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
--- snip ---
So because there are 3 groups we should not think about type I erors in
post-hoc testing? Why, then, do the texts I have talk about controlling for
alpha and use three group examples?
--
David Winsemius
Good question. I can only speculate about the reasons. Fisher's LSD
fell out of favour generally because it does not control the family-
wise alpha well when there are 4 or more groups. I think that over
time, we (collectively) have forgotten that it *does* control family-
wise alpha when there are 3 groups. Howell's book is the only one I'm
aware of that says this.
Re textbook examples, I imagine that authors are just trying to keep
things as simple as possible (e.g., reducing the number of
calculations) when demonstrating the various multiple comparison
procedures.
--
Bruce Weaver
bweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxx
www.angelfire.com/wv/bwhomedir
"When all else fails, RTFM."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: David Winsemius
- Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- References:
- Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: andre_xs
- Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: David Winsemius
- Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: Bruce Weaver
- Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- From: David Winsemius
- Covariate in ANCOVA question
- Prev by Date: Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- Next by Date: SEM: Standardized path weight greater than 1?
- Previous by thread: Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- Next by thread: Re: Covariate in ANCOVA question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading