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
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 Berkovits, I.
Right arrow Articles by Nevitt, J.
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?

Bootstrap Resampling Approaches for Repeated Measure Designs: Relative Robustness to Sphericity and Normality Violations

Ilona Berkovits

Gregory R. Hancock

University of Maryland, College Park

Jonathan Nevitt

University of Maryland School of Medicine

The current article proposes a bootstrap-F method and a bootstrap-T2 method for use in a one-way repeated measure ANOVA design. Using a Monte Carlo approach in which sample size, nonsphericity, and nonnormality are systematically manipulated, the Type I error rate of the two bootstrap methods are compared to that of the traditional F test, the Geisser-Greenhouse adjusted F test, the Box adjusted F test, the Huynh-Feldt adjusted F test, the ß-trimmed mean method using ß =.1and ß = .2, and the one-sample multivariate T2 test. Results show the bootstrap-F method controls Type I error better than all other methods considered when normality and sphericity assumptions are violated simultaneously.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 60, No. 6, 877-892 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/00131640021970961
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
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
L. M. Lix, K. N. Deering, R. T. Fouladi, and P. Manivong
Comparing Treatment and Control Groups on Multiple Outcomes: Robust Procedures for Testing a Directional Alternative Hypothesis
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 2009; 69(2): 198 - 215.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
G. Vallejo Seco, J. A. Gras, and M. Ato Garcia
Comparative Robustness of Recent Methods for Analyzing Multivariate Repeated Measures Designs
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 410 - 432.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
G. V. Seco, M. C. Izquierdo, M. P. F. Garcia, and F. J. H. Diez
A Comparison of the Bootstrap-F, Improved General Approximation, and Brown-Forsythe Multivariate Approaches in a Mixed Repeated Measures Design
Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2006; 66(1): 35 - 62.
[Abstract] [PDF]