The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance
Abstract
The practitioner of the analysis of variance often wants to draw as many conclusions as are reasonable about the relation of the true means for individual treatments, and a statement by the F-test (or the z-test) that they are not all alike leaves him thoroughly unsatisfied. The problem of breaking up the treatment means into distinguishable groups has not been discussed at much length, the solutions given in the various textbooks differ and, what is more important, seem solely based on intuition. After discussing the problem on a basis combining intuition with some hard, cold facts about the distributions of certain test quantities (or statistics) a simple and definite procedure is proposed for dividing treatments into distinguishable groups, and for determining that the treatments within some of these groups are different, although there is not enough evidence to say which is which. The procedure is illustrated on examples.
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
The preregistration revolution
Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1708274114 · Cited by 1,998
Harmonization of cortical thickness measurements across scanners and sites
Fortin, J.-P., Cullen, N., Sheline, Y. I., Taylor, W. D., Aselcioglu, I., Cook, P. A., Adams, P., Cooper, C., Fava, M., McGrath, P. J., et al. (2018) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.11.024 · Cited by 1,580
Impact of views to school landscapes on recovery from stress and mental fatigue
Li, D., & Sullivan, W. C. (2016) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.12.015 · Cited by 706
'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage': Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions
Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., & Shadbolt, N. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173951 · Cited by 691
“We used ANOVA tests, followed by Tukey’s post-hoc paired tests [75], to analyse the relative effects of different explanation styles within different study designs.”
MethodCan AI Help Reduce Disparities in General Medical and Mental Health Care?
(2019) · AMA Journal of Ethics · doi:10.1001/amajethics.2019.167 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Tukey, J. W.
- Venue
- Biometrics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1949-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99
- ISSN
- 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2318802957
- Cited by
- 4,246
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.58
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3001913
- The paper
- Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001913
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.
