Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 4,246

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparing Individual Means in the Analysis of Variance

Tukey, John W.·1949·Biometrics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/3001913

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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

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.