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 Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Nthangeni, M. Articles by Algina, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Type I Error Rate and Power of Some Alternative Methods to the Independent Samples t Test

University of the North, South Africa

James Algina

University of Florida

Several tests exist for use in treatment-control studies in which a larger treatment mean may be accompanied by a larger treatment variance. Type I error rates and power were estimated for four of these tests and for the independent samples t test and the Welch test. Five factors were manipulated: heteroscedasticity, total sample size, sample size imbalance, distribution, and power. The test due to Brownie, Boos, and Hughes-Oliver may not control the Type I error rate when the data are skewed. Among the other tests, one due to Conover and Salsburg and one due to Johnson, Verrill, and Moore had the best power advantage when compared to the independent sample t test and the Welch test. In the Johnson et al. test, a parameter that strongly affects power is specified, and a poor choice can reduce power below that for the Conover and Salsburg test.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 61, No. 6, 937-957 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/00131640121971581


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