Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,006

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparative Study of Tests for Homogeneity of Variances, with Applications to the Outer Continental Shelf Bidding Data

Conover, W. J., Johnson, Mark E., Johnson, Myrle M.·1981·Technometrics

Abstract

Many of the existing parametric and nonparametric tests for homogeneity of variances, and some variations of these tests, are examined in this paper. Comparisons are made under the null hypothesis (for robustness) and under the alternative (for power). Monte Carlo simulations of various symmetric and asymmetric distributions, for various sample sizes, reveal a few tests that are robust and have good power. These tests are further compared using data from outer continental shelf bidding on oil and gas leases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00401706.1981.10487680

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E., & Johnson, M. M.
Venue
Technometrics
Published
1981-11
Volume
23
Issue
4
Pages
351-361
ISSN
  • 0040-1706 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2723
OpenAlex
W1987122296
Cited by
1,006
References
1
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.