CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,098Statistical Methods and ApplicationsAdvanced Statistical Methods and ModelsStatistical Distribution Estimation and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Extension of Box's Results on the Use of the $F$ Distribution in Multivariate Analysis

Open access
Geisser, Seymour, Greenhouse, Samuel W.·1958·The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
DOI 10.1214/aoms/1177706545
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The mixed model in a 2-way analysis of variance is characterized by a fixed classification, e.g., treatments, and a random classification, e.g., plots or individuals. If we consider $k$ different treatments each applied to everyone of $n$ individuals, and assume the usual analysis of variance assumptions of uncorrelated errors, equal variances and normality, an appropriate analysis for the set of $nk$ observations $x_{ij}, i = 1, 2, \cdots n, j = 1, 2, \cdots k$, is ???? where the $F$ ratio under the null hypothesis has the $F$ distribution with $(k - 1)$ and $(k - 1)(n - 1)$ degrees of freedom. As is well known, if we extend the situation so that the errors have equal correlations instead of being uncorrelated, the $F$ ratio has the same distribution. Under the null hypothesis, the numerator estimates the same quantity as the denominator, namely, $(1 - \rho)\sigma^2$, where $\rho$ is the constant correlation coefficient among the treatments. This case can also be considered as a sampling of $n$ vectors (individuals) from a $k$-variate normal population with variance-covariance matrix $$V = \sigma^2 \begin{pmatrix} 1 & \rho & \cdots & \rho \\ \rho & & & \vdots \\ \vdots & & & \rho \\ \rho & \cdots & \rho & 1\end{pmatrix}.$$ If we consider this type of formulation and suppose the $k$ treatment errors to have a multivariate normal distribution with unknown variance-covariance matrix (the same for each individual), then the usual test described above is valid for $k = 2$. For $k > 2$, and $n \geqq k$, Hotelling's $T^2$ is the appropriate test for the homogeneity of the treatment means. However, the working statistician is sometimes confronted with the case where $k > n$, or he does not have the adequate means for computing large order inverse matrices and would therefore like to use the original test ratio which in general does not have the requisite $F$ distribution. Box [1] and [2] has given an approximate distribution of the test ratio to be $F\lbrack(k - 1)\epsilon, (k - 1)(n - 1)\epsilon\rbrack$ where $\epsilon$ is a function of the population variances and covariances and may further be approximated by the sample variances and covariances. We show in Section 3 that $\epsilon \geqq (k - 1)^{-1}$, and therefore a conservative test would be $F(1, n - 1)$. Box referred only to one group of $n$ individuals. We shall extend his results to a frequently occurring case, namely, the analysis of $g$ groups where the $\alpha$th group has $n_\alpha$ individuals, $\alpha = 1, 2, \cdots g$, and $\Sigma^g_{\alpha = 1} n_\alpha = N$. We will show that the treatment mean square and the treatment $\times$ group interaction can be tested in the same approximate fashion by using the Box procedure.

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 · 10.1214/aoms/1177706545

Cites

3 of 3 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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 3 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Geisser, S., & Greenhouse, S. W.
Venue
The Annals of Mathematical Statistics
Publisher
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Published
1958-09
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
885-891
ISSN
0003-4851 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1214/aoms/1177706545
OpenAlex
W2095378814
Cited by
1,098
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 22
FWCI
2.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
Keywords
F distribution, mixed models, two-way analysis of variance, correlated errors, multivariate normal distribution, approximate distribution, covariance matrix estimation, multivariate analysis of variance

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