This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Boehnke, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

F- and H-Test Assumptions Revisited

Technische Universität Berlin

The effects of some restraints not included in the classical assumptions of the F- and H-test (e.g., correlation of mean and sample size) were examined in a simulation design of 1000 samples per condition. Also simulated was a situation in which two assumptions were not met simultaneously. The major conclusions were: H was not an appropriate alternative for F with samples of N? 20; in all cases of unequal variances combined with unequal sample sizes H should be applied; and neither H nor F should be applied if more than one assumption of either test is not met.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 44, No. 3, 609-617 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164484443008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. Lix, J. C. Keselman, and H. J. Keselman Consequences of Assumption Violations Revisited: A Quantitative Review of Alternatives to the One-Way Analysis of Variance F Test Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1996; 66(4): 579 - 619. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. R. Harwell, E. N. Rubinstein, W. S. Hayes, and C. C. Olds Summarizing Monte Carlo Results in Methodological Research: The One- and Two-Factor Fixed Effects ANOVA Cases Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1992; 17(4): 315 - 339. [Abstract] [PDF]