Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,109

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance

Open access
Anderson, Marti, Braak, Cajo Ter·2003·Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation

Abstract

Several permutation strategies are often possible for tests of individual terms in analysis-of-variance (ANOVA) designs. These include restricted permutations, permutation of whole groups of units, permutation of some form of residuals or some combination of these. It is unclear, especially for complex designs involving random factors, mixed models or nested hierarchies, just which permutation strategy should be used for any particular test. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: (i) we provide a guideline for constructing an exact permutation strategy, where possible, for any individual term in any ANOVA design; and (ii) we provide results of Monte Carlo simulations to compare the level accuracy and power of different permutation strategies in two-way ANOVA, including random and mixed models, nested hierarchies and tests of interaction terms. Simulation results showed that permutation of residuals under a reduced model generally had greater power than the exact test or alternative approximate permutation methods (such as permutation of raw data). In several cases, restricted permutations, in particular, suffered more than other procedures, in terms of loss of power, challenging the conventional wisdom of using this approach. Our simulations also demonstrated that the choice of correct exchangeable units under the null hypothesis, in accordance with the guideline we provide, is essential for any permutation test, whether it be an exact test or an approximate test. For reference, we also provide appropriate permutation strategies for individual terms in any two-way or three-way ANOVA for the exact test (where possible) and for the approximate test using permutation of residuals.

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 · 10.1080/00949650215733

Cites

50 of 50 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

Show all 50 references

Cited by

See all 1,109

Metadata

Authors
Anderson, M., & Braak, C. T.
Venue
Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
Published
2003-01
Volume
73
Issue
2
Pages
85-113
ISSN
  • 0094-9655 (ISSN-L)
  • 1563-5163
OpenAlex
W2018135213
Cited by
1,109
References
50
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00949650215733
The paper
Anderson, M., & Braak, C. T. (2003). Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation. https://doi.org/10.1080/00949650215733

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.