Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klockars, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Hancock, G. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Per-Experiment Error Rates: The Hidden Costs of Several Multiple Comparison Procedures

Alan J. Klockars

University of Washington

Gregory R. Hancock

Auburn University

For a number of common multiple comparison procedures controlling Type I error at .05 refers to what Ryan called the experimentwise error rate. This expression represents the chance of making at least one Type I error within a given experiment. This approach ignores, however, the potential detriments of multiple errors within a single experiment, that is, it fails to acknowledge what Ryan referred to as the error rate per experiment. The current study uses a computer simulation to evaluate the differences between experimentwise error rates and error rates per experiment for a variety of multiple comparison procedures. For pairwise comparisons, Newman-Keuls's and Tukey's tests are examined, as is Dunnett's test for comparisons with a control group and Scheffe's test for all possible post hoc comparisons. For planned contrasts, a standard Bonferroni and Shaffer's sequentially rejective Bonferroni are simulated using both a nonorthogonal and an orthogonal set.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, No. 2, 292-298 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164494054002004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am Educ Res JHome page
L. Cohen-Vogel and T. M. Smith
Qualifications and Assignments of Alternatively Certified Teachers: Testing Core Assumptions
American Educational Research Journal, September 1, 2007; 44(3): 732 - 753.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICSHome page
A. J. Klockars and G. R. Hancock
Scheffe's More Powerful F-Protected Post Hoc Procedure
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 2000; 25(1): 13 - 19.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
G. R. Hancock and A. J. Klockars
The Quest for {alpha}: Developments in Multiple Comparison Procedures in the Quarter Century Since Games (1971)
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1996; 66(3): 269 - 306.
[Abstract] [PDF]