2005
DOI: 10.1590/s0001-37652005000100005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Several analytic techniques have been used to determine sexual dimorphism in vertebrate morphological measurement data with no emergent consensus on which technique is superior. A further confounding problem for frog data is the existence of considerable measurement error. To determine dimorphism, we examine a single hypothesis (Ho = equal means) for two groups (females and males). We demonstrate that frog measurement data meet assumptions for clearly defined statistical hypothesis testing with statistical lin… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These differences were not significant in any Anuran artifacts of preservation: 27 years later of the three (Table 1, P = 0.36, 0.25, and 0.14, respectively), nor were they significant taken together (P > 0.10 Fisher's Combined Probability Test, Sokal and Rohlf, 1969). Despite no statistical significance, the differences represent a mean difference in measurements of 0.74%, which may be biologically important (Hayek and Heyer 2005).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…These differences were not significant in any Anuran artifacts of preservation: 27 years later of the three (Table 1, P = 0.36, 0.25, and 0.14, respectively), nor were they significant taken together (P > 0.10 Fisher's Combined Probability Test, Sokal and Rohlf, 1969). Despite no statistical significance, the differences represent a mean difference in measurements of 0.74%, which may be biologically important (Hayek and Heyer 2005).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…For this reason, the results obtained by our morphological comparison using morphometric measurements available in the literature may not be accurate due to the examined characters containing potential inter-observer variability (Lee, 1990;Yezerinac et al, 1992;Palmeirim, 1998). Indeed, the magnitude of differences between measurements taken by different and those taken by the same observers are known to differ considerably from character to character (Lee, 1990;Palmei rim, 1998;Hayek and Heyer, 2005;Roitberg et al, 2011). For small sized bats, Palmeirim (1998) considered that the both the intra-and the inter-observer variability of measurements of several craniodental characters is adequate, and morphological comparisons using these characters from different sources can be performed with reasonable confidence.…”
Section: Morphological Differences Between 'Geographic Races' Of a Smentioning
confidence: 92%
“…However, power is most appropriately used before the field or experimental design, not retrospectively. Retrospective power, calculated for an analysis using the 'effect size' (Cohen 1977, Hayek & Heyer 2005 of that analysis, gives the same basic information as the p-value. Power can only be successfully used if there is an estimate of the expected effect size for the particular study and set of study organisms or observations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%