Comparing multiple comparisons: practical guidance for choosing the best multiple comparisons test
Stephen R. Midway; Matthew Robertson; Shane Flinn; Michael D. Kaller · 2020 · PeerJ
WASTE classifies this as Methods Dead-End · AI classification, approximate
A method or design hit a limitation — check whether the same constraint applies to your setup.
Abstract
Multiple comparisons tests (MCTs) include the statistical tests used to compare groups (treatments) often following a significant effect reported in one of many types of linear models. Due to a variety of data and statistical considerations, several dozen MCTs have been developed over the decades, with tests ranging from very similar to each other to very different from each other. Many scientific disciplines use MCTs, including >40,000 reports of their use in ecological journals in the last 60 years. Despite the ubiquity and utility of MCTs, several issues remain in terms of their correct
Abstract by Stephen R. Midway; Matthew Robertson; Shane Flinn; Michael D. Kaller, PeerJ (2020) — licensed CC BY 4.0.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Negative / Null Result ReportWillingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results
Replication FailureInferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication
Negative / Null Result ReportMOBILE BANKING ADOPTION: APPLICATION OF DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY
Negative / Null Result ReportEnjoyment and social influence: predicting mobile payment adoption
Negative / Null Result ReportLikelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: OpenAlex · DOI 10.7717/peerj.10387