1989
DOI: 10.1080/00031305.1989.10475641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lack-of-Fit Testing When Replicates are Not Available

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1991
1991
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This provided the sum of squares of the total error for each model. As no replicates were available, the ‘near replicates’ method (Joglekar et al , 1989) was used to obtain the sum of squares of the pure error of our dataset. Lack of fit and its probability could then be calculated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This provided the sum of squares of the total error for each model. As no replicates were available, the ‘near replicates’ method (Joglekar et al , 1989) was used to obtain the sum of squares of the pure error of our dataset. Lack of fit and its probability could then be calculated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is extremely interesting to note that this is precisely the same numerator sum of squares as used by Shillington (1979), Neill and Johnson (1985) and Joglekar et al (1989). The tests differ from the UMPI between clusters test in that they use different denominator sums of squares hence different estimates of (Tz.…”
Section: The Umpi Test For Orthogonal Lack Of Fit Between Clustersmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The UMPI tests are Christensen (1989), Atwood and Ryan (1977) and the new test. Shillington's (1979) test ignores C(M*) and Joglekar et al's (1989) test ignores both C(M*) and C(Mp -M xz ) .…”
Section: The Umpi Test For Orthogonal Lack Of Fit Between Clustersmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations