1994Educational and Psychological MeasurementRequires access

Per-Experiment Error Rates: The Hidden Costs of Several Multiple Comparison Procedures

Alan J. Klockars, Gregory R. Hancock

Open publisher page 17 citations

Abstract

For a number of common multiple comparison procedures controlling Type I error at .05 refers to what Ryan called the experimentwise error rate. This expression represents the chance of making at least one Type I error within a given experiment. This approach ignores, however, the potential detriments of multiple errors within a single experiment, that is, it fails to acknowledge what Ryan referred to as the error rate per experiment. The current study uses a computer simulation to evaluate the differences between experimentwise error rates and error rates per experiment for a variety of multiple comparison procedures. For pairwise comparisons, Newman-Keuls's and Tukey's tests are examined, as is Dunnett's test for comparisons with a control group and Scheffe's test for all possible post hoc comparisons. For planned contrasts, a standard Bonferroni and Shaffer's sequentially rejective Bonferroni are simulated using both a nonorthogonal and an orthogonal set.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

For a number of common multiple comparison procedures controlling Type I error at .05 refers to what Ryan called the experimentwise error rate. This expression represents the chance of making at least one Type I error within a given experiment. This approach ignores, however, the potential detriments of multiple errors within a single experiment, that is, it fails to acknowledge what Ryan referred to as the error rate per experiment. The current study uses a computer simulation to evaluate the differences between experimentwise error rates and error rates per experiment for a variety of multiple comparison procedures. For pairwise comparisons, Newman-Keuls's and Tukey's tests are examined, as is Dunnett's test for comparisons with a control group and Scheffe's test for all possible post hoc comparisons. For planned contrasts, a standard Bonferroni and Shaffer's sequentially rejective Bonferroni are simulated using both a nonorthogonal and an orthogonal set.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

For a number of common multiple comparison procedures controlling Type I error at .05 refers to what Ryan called the experimentwise error rate. This expression represents the chance of making at least one Type I error within a given experiment. This approach ignores, however, the potential detriments of multiple errors within a single experiment, that is, it fails to acknowledge what Ryan referred to as the error rate per experiment. The current study uses a computer simulation to evaluate the differences between experimentwise error rates and error rates per experiment for a variety of multiple comparison procedures. For pairwise comparisons, Newman-Keuls's and Tukey's tests are examined, as is Dunnett's test for comparisons with a control group and Scheffe's test for all possible post hoc comparisons. For planned contrasts, a standard Bonferroni and Shaffer's sequentially rejective Bonferroni are simulated using both a nonorthogonal and an orthogonal set.

Key concepts: Bonferroni correction, Scheffé's method, Multiple comparisons problem, Type I and type II errors, Statistics, Pairwise comparison, Mathematics, Word error rate

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Per-Experiment Error Rates: The Hidden Costs of Several Multiple Comparison Procedures — Research Paper | ScholarLens