Rich, Thanks for doing that; I appreciate your explanations on the list. –Steve (Pace University)
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]]
On Behalf Of Rich Ulrich
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 1:11 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: one way anova overall significant, but dunnett post hoc has no single significant group?
I wasn't complaining. I was just pointing to the
direction that has been useful to me. (Mostly, it
has been useful in teaching people about post-hoc
testing.)
--
Rich Ulrich
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:25:58 -0500
Subject: RE: one way anova overall significant, but dunnett post hoc has no single significant group?
IIRC, the theorem is if and only if, that is, it does work both ways.
Dr. Paul R. Swank, Professor
Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences
School of Public Health
University of Texas Health Science Center Houston
From: Rich Ulrich [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:05 PM
To: Swank, Paul R; SPSS list
Subject: RE: one way anova overall significant, but dunnett post hoc has no single significant group?
I've always thought of the Scheffe procedure in the opposite
direction.
That is: It sets a high standard for the individual contrast,
so that if there is *any* contrast that is significant, then the
omnibus test has to be. (Basically, the contrast will account
for the full Sum of Squares needed for the overall test and d.f.)
--
Rich Ulrich
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:22:33 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: one way anova overall significant, but dunnett post hoc has no single significant group?
> To: [hidden email]
>
> There is only one post-test comparison procedure that guarantees a significant result if you have a significant omnibus test and that is Scheffe. It, however, controls for all comparisons, including complex (ie. more than two means compared like (m1 + m2)/2
- m3 = 0).
>
>
...
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |