The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing
Open accessAbstract
Researchers are commonly in a situation, often after an experiment, where they want to compare the central tendency of some measure across a number of groups. If the number of groups is simply 2, then there is little controversy as to the appropriate analysis, with normally a t-test or a nonparametric equivalent being adopted. If the number of groups is greater than 2, most elementary statistical textbooks suggest performing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the null hypothesis that all the groups are the same and, if this null hypothesis is rejected, implementing some post hoc testing to identify which groups are significantly different from which other groups. However, as readers and reviewers of scientific papers in behavioral science, we have noted a great diversity of approaches when comparing more than 2 groups often with little or no justification for the adoption of a specific approach. Hence, our aim in this note is to briefly survey current practice in this regard and to provide clear guidance on how such testing might most appropriately be carried out in different instances.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674
Cited by
Salinas, J., Beiser, A. S., Samra, J. K., O'Donnell, A., DeCarli, C. S., Gonzales, M. M., Aparicio, H. J., & Seshadri, S. (2022) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000200039 · Cited by 127
D’Angelo, J. D., & Toma, C. L. (2017) · Media Psychology · doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1121827 · Cited by 124
Nguyen, A. M., Schelfhout, J., Muccino, D., Bacci, E. D., La Rosa, C., Vernon, M., & Birring, S. S. (2022) · Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease · doi:10.1177/17534666221099737 · Cited by 81
Parvaz, M. A., Maloney, T., Moeller, S. J., Woicik, P. A., Alia-Klein, N., Telang, F., Wang, G.-J., Squires, N. K., Volkow, N. D., & Goldstein, R. Z. (2012) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2012.01.001 · Cited by 49
Infant Differential Behavioral Responding to Discrete Emotions
Walle, E. A., Reschke, P. J., Camras, L. A., & Campos, J. J. (2017) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/emo0000307 · Cited by 48
Sabourin, B. C., Watt, M. C., Krigolson, O. E., & Stewart, S. H. (2016) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.30.2.131 · Cited by 26
Underwood, R., Kumari, V., & Peters, E. (2016) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291715002780 · Cited by 14
Sex modulation of faces prediction error in the autistic brain
Lacroix, A., Harquel, S., Mermillod, M., Garrido, M., Barbosa, L., Vercueil, L., Aleysson, D., Dutheil, F., Kovarski, K., & Gomot, M. (2024) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-05807-4 · Cited by 12
Burger, T. (2023) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.202200406 · Cited by 10
“Moreover, it is important to understand that subsequently to the PHTs, some proteins may display differential abundance for zero, one or even several contrast(s).”
BackgroundInfluentialZsigo, C., Sfärlea, A., Lingl, C., Piechaczek, C., Schulte-Körne, G., Feldmann, L., & Greimel, E. (2023) · Child Psychiatry & Human Development · doi:10.1007/s10578-022-01353-4 · Cited by 8
Kutlu, M. G., Braak, D. C., Tumolo, J. M., & Gould, T. J. (2016) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2016.04.023 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Ruxton, G. D., & Beauchamp, G.
- Venue
- Behavioral Ecology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 690-693
- ISSN
- 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-7279
- OpenAlex
- W2118852500
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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.
