1994
DOI: 10.1080/01688639408402625
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multiple comparison methods: Establishing guidelines for their valid application in neuropsychological research

Abstract: This comment serves to provide a rationale for research clinical neuropsychologists to decide: (1) under what conditions multiple comparison methods are required; and (2) what specific guidelines can be used to distinguish conditions favoring a given multiple comparison technique over its competitors. The topic is discussed both for the parametric and nonparametric case, as well as for post hoc tests following both statistically significant main effects and interactions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
77
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(80 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
2
77
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to simultaneously examine the relationship of thalamic volume with subject and TBV groups. For analyses reaching significance, post hoc testing was performed (Tukey multiple comparison test: Cicchetti, 1994;Tsatsanis et al, 2003). Significance levels were defined using conventional levels (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to simultaneously examine the relationship of thalamic volume with subject and TBV groups. For analyses reaching significance, post hoc testing was performed (Tukey multiple comparison test: Cicchetti, 1994;Tsatsanis et al, 2003). Significance levels were defined using conventional levels (p < 0.05).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stability was evaluated using test–retest reliability based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with cut-offs ≤0.40 for poor , 0.41–0.59 fair , 0.60–0.74 good , ≥0.75 excellent 19. The estimated variance components derived from a one-way random effects model were used to calculate ICCs 20.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Stability was evaluated using test-retest reliability based on Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) (Shrout and Fleiss 1979). We used Cicchetti's (1994) recommendations for interpreting ICC's as poor (≤.40), fair (.41-.59), good (.60-.74), and excellent (≥.75) (Cicchetti 1994), which have been adopted in substance use research (Selin 2003;Tonigan and Miller 2002;Britton and Conner 2007). One-way random effects models with consistency of agreement were used to derive ICC's (Shrout and Fleiss 1979).…”
Section: Statistical Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%