2022
DOI: 10.1186/s42269-022-00924-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Misuse of analysis of variance in African biomedical journals: a call for more vigilance

Abstract: Background Misuse of analysis of variance alongside other statistical methods has been an important topic of discussion in many scientific gatherings. Although misuse of analysis of variance is of global concern, its prevalence in African-based biomedical journals has raised concerns among colleagues. Methods We sampled the current issues/last published issues of all African biomedical journals aggregated in an African journal aggregator. We scanne… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 23 publications
(24 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several documents highlight the misuse of ANOVA in two-way designs due to heterogeneous variance (Rowell & Walters, 2006) highlighting defective data (Pearce, 2006). Defective data includes the nonspeci cation of the type of ANOVA (Abubakar et al, 2022), confusion in the choice of the type of effects ( xed or random) (Bennington & Thayne, 1994), assumption too quickly of the weak argument that not rejecting the null hypothesis implies a strong conclusion (Rong, 2000), inappropriate use of the terms associated with the error in the construction of the statistical F or the type of sums of squares (Li & Lomax, 2011). Such defective data even includes the belief, supported in recognized literature that only a couple of assumptions are necessary to make use of the technique (Acutis et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several documents highlight the misuse of ANOVA in two-way designs due to heterogeneous variance (Rowell & Walters, 2006) highlighting defective data (Pearce, 2006). Defective data includes the nonspeci cation of the type of ANOVA (Abubakar et al, 2022), confusion in the choice of the type of effects ( xed or random) (Bennington & Thayne, 1994), assumption too quickly of the weak argument that not rejecting the null hypothesis implies a strong conclusion (Rong, 2000), inappropriate use of the terms associated with the error in the construction of the statistical F or the type of sums of squares (Li & Lomax, 2011). Such defective data even includes the belief, supported in recognized literature that only a couple of assumptions are necessary to make use of the technique (Acutis et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%