[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Nick Cox" <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
RE: st: newbie question: nonsig posthoc after sig anova |

Date |
Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:02:42 +0100 |

Roger Newson > An F-test comparing 5 groups is implicitly defining a 95% > confidence > region, in 4-dimensional "hyperspace", for 4 mean > differences between the 4 > non-reference groups and the reference group. Jim's "barely > significant" > P-value implies that this confidence region does not > contain the vector of > 4 zero mean differences, which would be the true population mean > differences if all 5 groups had the same mean. However, the > post-hoc tests > seem to imply that the confidence region for the 4 mean > differences might > contain zero values for any of the 4 mean differences individually. > Therefore, although it seems that at least one difference > is non-zero, Jim > has insufficient data to incriminate one of these > differences as being "the > culprit". > > Jim doesn't say what the ANOVA is about. However, most > statisticians > nowadays, most of the time, prefer confidence intervals to > P-values alone, > because P-values only measure the compatibility of the data > with zero > population differences, and do not give a range of positive > and/or negative > and/or zero population differences with which the data ARE > compatible. A > good introduction to confidence intervals, commonly used in > the medical > sector, is Altman et al. (2000). > > Reference > > Douglas Altman, David Machin, Trevor Bryant, Martin > Gardner. Statistics > with Confidence. London: British Medical Journal Books; > 2000. ISBN: 0727913751 I have a more general question arising obliquely out of these issues. The point of these multiple comparison procedures, Bonferroni, Scheffe, Sidak, etc. (and sprinkle all the accents required on those names) is, as I understand it, to inject a strong note of caution given the number of individual tests you could carry out and the built-in tendency that the more you carry out, the more are likely to attain significance at some conventional level, and so forth. What is the attitude to fishing _among_ multiple comparison procedures, i.e. looking _among_ various different post hoc results with the pitfall that you're tempted to report the one closest to your pre-conceived (ne)science? Aren't you supposed to cleave the one whose inferential logic you find most compelling? Is this a documented issue? Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: newbie question: nonsig posthoc after sig anova***From:*Roger Newson <roger.newson@kcl.ac.uk>

**References**:**Re: st: newbie question: nonsig posthoc after sig anova***From:*Roger Newson <roger.newson@kcl.ac.uk>

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: Intruments in XTABOND** - Next by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Intruments in XTABOND** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: newbie question: nonsig posthoc after sig anova** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: newbie question: nonsig posthoc after sig anova** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |