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 accessAbstract
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.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In order to compensate for such adverse effects in tests of within effects or between-within interactions, the noncentrality parameter and the degrees of freedom of the F distribution can be multiplied by a correction factor (Geisser & Greenhouse, 1958;Huynh & Feldt, 1970).”
From G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences (2007) · cites this paper as Geisser & Greenhouse, 1958
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Box, G. E. P. (1954) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728786 · Cited by 1,528
Box, G. E. P. (1954) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728717 · Cited by 562
Note on the Extension of Craig's Theorem to Non-Central Variates
Carpenter, O. (1950) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729807 · Cited by 21
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
Unterschiede zwischen kognitionsbasierten und affektbasierten Einstellungen
Naumann, J. (2004) · Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) · Cited by 1
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)
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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