Multiple T Tests Error
Contents |
four flips? · For two coin flips, the probability of not obtaining at least when to use anova vs t test one heads (i.e., getting tails both times) is 0.50 × 0.50 = advantage of anova over t-test 0.25. · The probability of one or more heads in two coin flips is 1 – 0.25 = 0.75. anova or t-test for two groups Three-fourths of "two coin flips" will have at least one heads. · So, if I flip the coin four times, the probability of one or more heads is 1 –
Anova Vs T Test For Two Sample
(0.50 × 0.50 × 0.50 × 0.50) = 1 – (0.50)4 = 1 – 0.625 = 0.9375; you will get one or more heads in about 94% of sets of "four coin flips". · Similarly, for a statistical test (such as a t test) with α= 0.05, if the null hypothesis is true then the probability of not obtaining a bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons significant result is 1 – 0.05 = 0.95. · Multiply 0.95 by the number of tests to calculate the probability of not obtaining one or more significant results across all tests. For two tests, the probability of not obtaining one or more significant results is 0.95 × 0.95 = 0.9025. · Subtract that result from 1.00 to calculate the probability of making at least one type I error with multiple tests: 1 – 0.9025 = 0.0975. · Example (p. 162): You are comparing 4 groups (A, B, C, D). You compare these six pairs (α= 0.05 for each): A vs B, B vs C, C vs D, A vs C, A vs D, and B vs D. · Using the convenient formula (see p. 162), the probability of not obtaining a significant result is 1 – (1 – 0.05)6 = 0.265, which means your chances of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis (a type I error) is about 1 in 4 instead of 1 in 20!! · ANOVA compares all means simultaneously and maintains the type I error probability at the designated level.
may be challenged and removed. (June 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) An example of data produced by data dredging, apparently showing similarities between t test and anova a close link between the letters in the winning word used
One Way Anova Vs T Test
in a spelling bee competition and the number of people in the United States killed by venomous
When To Use Bonferroni Correction
spiders. The clear similarity in trends is a coincidence. If many data series are compared, similarly convincing but coincidental data may be obtained. In statistics, the multiple comparisons, http://grants.hhp.coe.uh.edu/doconnor/PEP6305/Multiple%20t%20tests.htm multiplicity or multiple testing problem occurs when one considers a set of statistical inferences simultaneously[1] or infers a subset of parameters selected based on the observed values.[2] It is also known as the look-elsewhere effect. Errors in inference, including confidence intervals that fail to include their corresponding population parameters or hypothesis tests that incorrectly reject the null https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons_problem hypothesis, are more likely to occur when one considers the set as a whole. Several statistical techniques have been developed to prevent this from happening, allowing significance levels for single and multiple comparisons to be directly compared. These techniques generally require a higher significance threshold for individual comparisons, so as to compensate for the number of inferences being made. Contents 1 History 2 Definition 2.1 Classification of multiple hypothesis tests 3 Example 4 Controlling procedures 5 Post-hoc testing of ANOVAs 6 Large-scale multiple testing 6.1 Assessing whether any alternative hypotheses are true 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading History[edit] The interest in the problem of multiple comparisons began in the 1950s with the work of Tukey and Scheffé. New methods and procedures came out: the closed testing procedure (Marcus et al., 1976) and the Holm–Bonferroni method (1979). Later, in the 1980s, the issue of multiple comparisons came back (Hochberg and Tamhane (1987), Westfall and Young (1993), and Hsu (1996)). In 1995 work on the false
Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site About http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/61264/multiple-t-tests-vs-one-way-anova Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company Business Learn more about hiring https://www.graphpad.com/support/faqid/1533/ developers or posting ads with us Cross Validated Questions Tags Users Badges Unanswered Ask Question _ Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. Join them; it only takes a minute: Sign up Here's how it works: Anybody can ask t test a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Multiple t-tests vs. one-way ANOVA up vote 3 down vote favorite 1 I'm working on a classification problem and I have a very high F1 baseline of 85%. I have trained three classification models and I want to know which one is the best. How can I do so? I tried anova vs t two ways: To compare each model against the baseline using paired t-test. So I have tests like: baseline vs. model 1 baseline vs. model 2 baseline vs. model 3 That tells me that only model 1 is significantly higher than the baseline and so I concluded that model 1 is the best. Is this a valid methodology given that usually classification models are compared against baselines? To compare all models in one fell swoop with one-way ANOVA. So I entered the information of models 1-3 and the baseline which gave me a p-value of 0.02 indicating that there is a difference in means. Yet, with pairwise post-hoc tests, there is no significance between any of the pairs. Which method is the correct one? anova classification statistical-significance t-test multiple-comparisons share|improve this question edited Jun 9 '13 at 14:07 asked Jun 9 '13 at 6:55 Sabba 3515 add a comment| 2 Answers 2 active oldest votes up vote 4 down vote accepted If your goal is to see which methods are better than the baseline, then method 1 is correct. If your goal is to see which methods are better than each other, then method 2 is correct. Method 2 with Dunn
Graphpad.com FAQs Find ANY word Find ALL words Find EXACT phrase t tests after one-way ANOVA, without correction for multiple comparisons FAQ# 1533 Last Modified 8-September-2009 Correcting for multiple comparisons is notessential Testing multiple hypotheses at once creates a dilemma that cannot be escaped. If you donotmake any corrections for multiple comparisons, it becomes 'too easy' to find 'significant' findings by chance--it is too easy to make a Type I error. But if youdocorrect for multiple comparisons, you lose power to detect real differences -- itis too easy tomake aType II error. The only way to escape this dilemma is to focus you analyses, and thus avoid making multiple comparisons. For example, if your treatments are ordered, don't compare each mean with each other mean (multiple comparisons), instead do one test for trend to ask if the outcome is linearly related with treatment number. Another example: If some of the groups are simply positive and negative controls needed to verify that an experiment 'worked', don't include them as part of the ANOVA and as part of the multiple comparisons. Once you verified that the experiment worked, throw away those controls and only analyze the data that relate to your experimental hypothesis, which might be a single comparison. If you need to test multiple hypotheses at once, there is simply no way to escape the dilemma. If you use multiple comparisons procedures to reduce the risk of making a Type I error, you will increase your risk of making a Type II error. If you don't make corrections for multiple comparisons, you increase your risk of making a Type I error and lower the chance of making a Type II error. How to compute individual P values without correcting for multiple comparisons Saville suggests that corrections formultiple comparison not be performed, but rather that yousimply report all your data and let your readers make the conclusions (D. J. Saville, Multiple Comparison Procedures: The Practical Solution. The American Statistician, 44:174-180, 1990). This requires you to alert your readers to the fact you have not done any correction for multiple comparisons, and to honestly report all the comparisons you did make, so the reade