Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 806

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Modified Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedures

Shaffer, Juliet Popper·1986·Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract

Suppose that n hypotheses H 1, H 2, …, H n with associated test statistics T 1, T 2, …, T n are to be tested by a procedure with experimentwise significance level (the probability of rejecting one or more true hypotheses) smaller than or equal to some specified value α. A commonly used procedure satisfying this condition is the Bonferroni (B) procedure, which consists of rejecting H i , for any i, iff the associated test statistic T i is significant at the level α′ = α/n. Holm (1979) introduced a modified Bonferroni procedure with greater power than the B procedure. Under Holm's sequentially rejective Bonferroni (SRB) procedure, if any hypothesis is rejected at the level α′ = α/n, the denominator of α′ for the next test is n − 1, and the criterion continues to be modified in a stagewise manner, with the denominator of α′ reduced by 1 each time a hypothesis is rejected, so that tests can be conducted at successively higher significance levels. Holm proved that the experimentwise significance level of the SRB procedure is ≤ α, as is that of the original B procedure. Often, the hypotheses being tested are logically interrelated so that not all combinations of true and false hypotheses are possible. As a simple example of such a situation suppose, given samples from three distributions, we want to test the three hypotheses of pairwise equality: μ i = μ′ i (i < i′ = 1, 2, 3), where μ i is the mean of distribution i. It is easily seen from the relations among the hypotheses that if any one of them is false, at least one other must be false. Thus there cannot be one false and two true hypotheses among these three. If we are testing all hypotheses of pairwise equality with more than three distributions, there are many such constraints. As another example, consider the hypotheses of independence of rows and columns of all 2×2 subtables of a K x L contingency table. It is shown that if one such hypothesis is false, then at least (K − 1) (L − 1) must be false. When there are logical implications among the hypotheses and alternatives, as in the preceding examples, Holm's SRB procedure can be improved to obtain a further increase in power. This article considers methods for achieving such improvement. One way of modifying the SRB method is as follows: Given that j − 1 hypotheses have been rejected, the denominator of α′, instead of being set at n − j + 1 for the next test as in the SRB procedure, can be set at t j , where t j equals the maximum number of hypotheses that could be true, given that at least j − 1 hypotheses are false. Obviously, t j is never greater than n − j + 1, and for some values of j it may be strictly smaller, as for j = 2 in the first example. Then this modified sequentially rejective Bonferroni (MSRB) procedure will never be less powerful (and typically will be more powerful) than the SRB procedure while (as is proved in the article) maintaining an experimentwise significance level ≤ α. The MSRB procedure is readily applicable to a wide variety of standard and nonstandard problems. A number of examples are given, and extensions and generalizations are discussed. It is pointed out that the methods may be adapted in some circumstances to the use of non-Bonferroni multiple test procedures.

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 · 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478341

Cites

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shaffer, J. P.
Venue
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Published
1986-09
Volume
81
Issue
395
Pages
826-831
ISSN
  • 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-274X
OpenAlex
W2025126377
Cited by
806
References
0
FWCI
13.12
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.