| Title |
Bias and precision of some classical ANOVA effect sizes when assumptions are violated
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-012-0257-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susan Troncoso Skidmore, Bruce Thompson |
| Abstract |
Previous simulation research has focused on evaluating the impact of analytic assumption violations on statistics related to the F test and associated p CALCULATED values. The present article evaluated the bias of classical estimates of practical significance (i.e., effect size sample estimators [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text]) in a one-way between-subjects univariate ANOVA when assumptions are violated. The simulation conditions modeled were selected on the basis of prior empirical research. Estimated (1) sampling error bias and (2) precision computed for each of the three effect size estimates for the 5,000 samples drawn for each of the 270 (5 parameter Cohen's d values × 3 group size ratios × 3 population distribution shapes × 3 variance ratios × 2 total ns) conditions were modeled for each of the k = 2, 3, and 4 group analyses. Our results corroborate the limited previous related research and suggest that [Formula: see text] should not be used as an ANOVA effect size estimator, even though [Formula: see text] is the only available choice in the menus in most commonly available software. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Macao | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 23% |
| Researcher | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 30 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 27 | 25% |
| Unknown | 24 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2020.
All research outputs
#14,277,392
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,267
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,351
of 191,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#9
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 191,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.