Cited by 3,146Optimal Experimental Design MethodsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsProbability and Statistical Research

Extension of Multiple Range Tests to Group Means with Unequal Numbers of Replications

Kramer, Clyde Young·1956·Biometrics

Abstract

In many fields of research, one is faced with the task of comparing the effects of treatments which have been replicated unequally. This happens for a number of reasons. In an experiment on animals, some may get sick and have to be removed from the experiment. In some experiments, the amount of material available for certain treatments may not be as much as for other treatments. If the experimenter has specified orthogonal contrasts that he is interested in before he runs the experiment, one can test the various treatment effects by an F-test after the treatment sum of squares has been partitioned into individual degrees of freedom for each orthogonal contrast. If the experimenter has not specified orthogonal contrasts, one is faced with the problem of deciding which treatments are significantly different. Several writers, including Duncan, Keuls, Newman, and Tukey, have developed multiple range tests to show differences among treatments that have been replicated the same number of times and when nothing was specified concerning the treatments. Duncan [1] compares the above methods and gives citations. This extension to unequal numbers of replications will be exemplified with reference to Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, but is applicable to any of the above writers' tests; all one has to do is use their tabled ranges. In Duncan's test for an equal number of replications, the difference between any two ranked means is significant if the difference exceeds a shortest significant range. This shortest significant range is designated by R, and is obtained by multiplying the standard error of a mean, s,, by a given value, zn2, obtained from a table of significant studentized ranges which Duncan has tabled for both the 5% and 1% test. In Duncan's terminology, n2 is the degrees of freedom of the error mean square and p = 1, 2, * *, t is the number of means concerned. Consider an experiment with five treatments, A, B. C, D, and E, each replicated n times. Suppose on ranking the means from low to high one obtains

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3001469

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kramer, C. Y.
Corresponding author
Kramer, Clyde Young
Venue
Biometrics
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1956-09
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
307
ISSN
0006-341X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2329442555
Cited by
3,146
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 61
FWCI
9.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biometrics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
treatment comparison, orthogonal contrasts, F-test

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