Consequences of assumption violations revisited: A quantitative review of alternatives to the one-way analysis of variance F test

被引:263
作者
Lix, LM
Keselman, JC
Keselman, HJ
机构
[1] UNIV MANITOBA,OFF PRESIDENT,WINNIPEG,MB R3T 2N2,CANADA
[2] UNIV MANITOBA,DEPT PSYCHOL,WINNIPEG,MB R3T 2N2,CANADA
关键词
D O I
10.3102/00346543066004579
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
The presence of variance heterogeneity and nonnormality in educational and psychological data may frequently invalidate the use of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) F test in one-way independent groups designs. This article offers recommendations to applied researchers on the use of various parametric and nonparametric alternatives to the F test under assumption violation conditions. Meta-analytic techniques were used to summarize the statistical robustness literature on the Type I error properties of the Brown-Forsythe (Brown & Forsythe, 1974), James (1951) second-order, Kruskal-Wallis (Kruskal & Wallis, 1952), and Welch (1951) tests. Two variables, based on the theoretical work of Box (1954), are shown to be highly effective in deciding when a particular alternative procedure should be adopted. Based on the meta-analysis findings, it is recommended that researchers gain a clear understanding of the nature of their data before conducting statistical analyses. Of all of the procedures, the James and Welch tests performed best under violations of the variance homogeneity assumption, although their sensitivity to certain types of nonnormality may preclude their use in all data-analytic situations. Opportunities for further methodological studies of ANOVA alternative procedures are also discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:579 / 619
页数:41
相关论文
共 82 条
[21]   SOME CONSEQUENCES WHEN THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE ARE NOT SATISFIED [J].
COCHRAN, WG .
BIOMETRICS, 1947, 3 (01) :22-38
[22]   TESTING THE EQUALITY OF SEVERAL MEANS WHEN THE POPULATION VARIANCES ARE UNEQUAL [J].
DIJKSTRA, JB ;
WERTER, SPJ .
COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS PART B-SIMULATION AND COMPUTATION, 1981, 10 (06) :557-569
[23]  
DIXON WJ, 1992, BMDP STATISTICAL SOF, V1
[24]   THE ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE [J].
EISENHART, C .
BIOMETRICS, 1947, 3 (01) :1-21
[25]   EMPIRICAL COMPARISON OF ANOVA F-TEST, NORMAL SCORES TEST AND KRUSKAL-WALLIS TEST UNDER VIOLATION OF ASSUMPTIONS [J].
FEIRWALS.BJ ;
TOOTHAKER, LE .
EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1974, 34 (04) :789-799
[26]  
FENSTAD GU, 1983, BIOMETRIKA, V70, P300
[27]  
GABRIEL KR, 1967, MIMEO SERIES U N CAR, V569
[28]   CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO MEET ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING FIXED EFFECTS ANALYSES OF VARIANCE AND COVARIANCE [J].
GLASS, GV ;
PECKHAM, PD ;
SANDERS, JR .
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH, 1972, 42 (03) :237-288
[29]  
HARWELL MR, 1992, J EDUC STAT, V17, P315, DOI 10.3102/10769986017004315
[30]   SUMMARIZING MONTE-CARLO RESULTS IN METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH [J].
HARWELL, MR .
JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STATISTICS, 1992, 17 (04) :297-313