Relationship between Omnibus and Post-hoc Tests: An Investigation of performance of the F test in ANOVA.

Tian Chen, Manfei Xu, Justin Tu, Hongyue Wang, Xiaohui Niu
{"title":"Relationship between Omnibus and Post-hoc Tests: An Investigation of performance of the F test in ANOVA.","authors":"Tian Chen,&nbsp;Manfei Xu,&nbsp;Justin Tu,&nbsp;Hongyue Wang,&nbsp;Xiaohui Niu","doi":"10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.218014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Comparison of groups is a common statistical test in many biomedical and psychosocial research studies. When there are more than two groups, one first performs an omnibus test for an overall difference across the groups. If this null is rejected, one then proceeds to the next step of post-hoc pairwise group comparisons to determine sources of difference. Otherwise, one stops and declares no group difference. A common belief is that if the omnibus test is significant, there must exist at least two groups that are significantly different and vice versa. Thus, when the omnibus test is significant, but no post-hoc between-group comparison shows significant difference, one is bewildered at what is going on and wondering how to interpret the results. At the end of the spectrum, when the omnibus test is not significant, one wonders if all post-hoc tests will be non-significant as well so that stopping after a nonsignificant omnibus test will not lead to any missed opportunity of finding group difference. In this report, we investigate this perplexing phenomenon and discuss how to interpret such results.</p>","PeriodicalId":21886,"journal":{"name":"上海精神医学","volume":"30 1","pages":"60-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.218014","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"上海精神医学","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11919/j.issn.1002-0829.218014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

Comparison of groups is a common statistical test in many biomedical and psychosocial research studies. When there are more than two groups, one first performs an omnibus test for an overall difference across the groups. If this null is rejected, one then proceeds to the next step of post-hoc pairwise group comparisons to determine sources of difference. Otherwise, one stops and declares no group difference. A common belief is that if the omnibus test is significant, there must exist at least two groups that are significantly different and vice versa. Thus, when the omnibus test is significant, but no post-hoc between-group comparison shows significant difference, one is bewildered at what is going on and wondering how to interpret the results. At the end of the spectrum, when the omnibus test is not significant, one wonders if all post-hoc tests will be non-significant as well so that stopping after a nonsignificant omnibus test will not lead to any missed opportunity of finding group difference. In this report, we investigate this perplexing phenomenon and discuss how to interpret such results.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

综合检验和事后检验之间的关系:方差分析中F检验性能的调查。
群体比较是许多生物医学和社会心理研究中常见的统计检验。当有两个以上的组时,首先对组间的总体差异进行综合测试。如果这个空值被拒绝,那么就进行下一步的事后两两组比较,以确定差异的来源。否则,一个人停止并宣布没有群体差异。一个普遍的信念是,如果综合测试是显著的,必须存在至少两组显著不同,反之亦然。因此,当综合测试是显著的,但没有事后组间比较显示显著差异时,人们对正在发生的事情感到困惑,并想知道如何解释结果。在谱的末端,当综合检验不显著时,人们想知道是否所有的事后检验也都不显著,这样在综合检验不显著后停止就不会导致错过任何发现组差异的机会。在本报告中,我们调查了这一令人困惑的现象,并讨论了如何解释这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2341
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信