The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Type I Error Rate Comparisons of Post Hoc Procedures for I j Chi-Square Tables
Abstract
The authors used Monte Carlo methods to assess the per-contrast and experimentwise Type I error rates of two post hoc tests of cellwise residuals and four post hoc tests of pairwise contrasts in 3 4 chi-square contingency tables. The six post hoc procedures were evaluated under three sample sizes and under the null hypotheses of independence and homogeneity. Results of the study indicate that the cellwise adjusted residual method provided adequate experimentwise Type I error rate control when appropriate adjustments to the alpha level were made, and the Gardner pairwise post hoc procedure provided several advantages over the other pairwise procedures. This was true for both the independence and homogeneity models.
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
Cited by
Smith, E. D., Lakdawala, N. K., Papoutsidakis, N., Aubert, G., Mazzanti, A., McCanta, A. C., Agarwal, P. P., Arscott, P., Dellefave-Castillo, L. M., Vorovich, E. E., et al. (2020) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.044934 · Cited by 504
Incidence and Risk Factors of Insomnia in a Population-Based Sample
LeBlanc, M., Mérette, C., Savard, J., Ivers, H., Baillargeon, L., & Morin, C. M. (2009) · Sleep · doi:10.1093/sleep/32.8.1027 · Cited by 493
Barnett, M. L., Gonzalez, A., Miranda, J., Chavira, D. A., & Lau, A. S. (2018) · Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research · doi:10.1007/s10488-017-0815-0 · Cited by 431
Phantasia–The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes
Zeman, A., Milton, F., Della Sala, S., Dewar, M., Frayling, T., Gaddum, J., Hattersley, A., Heuerman-Williamson, B., Jones, K., MacKisack, M., et al. (2020) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2020.04.003 · Cited by 336
Online Sexual Activity Experiences Among College Students: A Four-Country Comparison
Döring, N., Daneback, K., Shaughnessy, K., Grov, C., & Byers, E. S. (2017) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0656-4 · Cited by 141
Results of the COVID-19 mental health international for the general population (COMET-G) study
Fountoulakis, K. N., Karakatsoulis, G., Abraham, S., Adorjan, K., Ahmed, H. U., Alarcón, R. D., Arai, K., Auwal, S. S., Berk, M., Bjedov, S., et al. (2022) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.10.004 · Cited by 134
Mitra, T., Hutto, C. J., & Gilbert, E. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702553 · Cited by 102
Hyland, J., Henchion, M. M., Olomo, O., Attard, J., & Gaffey, J. (2024) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-01-2023-0058 · Cited by 22
Udell, C. J., Ruddy, J. L., & Procento, P. M. (2018) · Military Medicine · doi:10.1093/milmed/usx109 · Cited by 15
Sher, V., Hatala, M., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Journal of Learning Analytics · doi:10.18608/jla.2022.6697 · Cited by 12
“We compared the standardized residuals as suggested by Beasley and Schumacker (1995) given that they are known to maintain Type 1 error (due to multiple comparisons) at a satisfactory level (MacDonald & Gardner, 2000).”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- MacDonald, P. L., & Gardner, R. C.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2000-10
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 735-754
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2062055237
- Cited by
- 456
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.75
- 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.
