Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:21.750Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Data Analysis in Agricultural Experimentation. III. Multiple Comparisons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. C. Pearce
S. C. Pearce
Affiliation:
Applied Statistics Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Multiple comparison methods are described. It is noted that they have always been controversial, partly because they emphasize testing at the expense of estimation, partly because they pay no regard to the purpose of the investigation, partly because there are so many competing forms and, not least, because they can lead to illogical conclusions. There are many identified instances where they have been found misleading.

An alternative approach is to designate ‘contrasts of interest’ from the start and to concentrate estimation and testing upon them. In many experiments the approach is powerful and definite in use, but sometimes there is no reason to designate one contrast rather than another, for example, in the assessment of new strains or new chemicals. In such circumstances some have found multiple comparisons useful, especially when the problem is to ‘pick the winner’. Bayesian methods and cluster analysis are considered briefly as other alternatives.

The current over-use of multiple comparisons is deplored. It is thought to arise in part from bad teaching and in part from the general reluctance of non-statisticians to venture into the unknown territory of specifying contrasts. A bad situation is made worse by the availability of software that carries out multiple comparisons as a matter of course.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 1 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, R. J. (1980). Multiple comparison tests. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60:325–327.Google Scholar
Bryan-Jones, J. & Finney, D.J. (1983). On an error in “Instructions to Authors”. HortScience 18:279–282.Google Scholar
Caliński, T. & Corsten, L. C. A. (1985). Clustering means in ANOVA by simultaneous testing. Biometrics 41:39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G. & Walker, W. M. (1982). Baby Bear's dilemma: a statistical tale. Agronomy Journal 74:122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, V. (1976). Comparing treatment means: A compendium. HortScience 11:348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, V. (1980). Testing differences among means: correct interpretation and some alternatives. HortScience. 15:467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R. (1965). A remark on multiple comparison methods. Technometrics 7:223–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, H. C. (1981). The misuse of t-tests, LSD and multiple-range tests. British Ecological Society Bulletin 12:112–115.Google Scholar
Dawkins, H. C. (1983). Multiple comparisons misused: Why so frequently in response curve studies? Biometrics 39:789–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, D. O. & Duncan, D. B. (1975). Minimum Bayes risk t-intervals for multiple comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70:822–831.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-tests. Biometrics 11:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1965). A Bayesian approach to multiple comparisons. Technometrics 7:171–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons between means. Journal of the American Statistical Association 56:52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. (1988). Was this in your statistics textbook? III. Design and analysis. Experimental Agriculture 24:421–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, J. L. (1973). Current status of multiple comparisons of means in designed experiments. Journal of Dairy Science 56:973–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolliffe, I. T., Allen, O. B. & Christie, B. R. (1989). Comparison of variety means using cluster analysis and dendrograms. Experimental Agriculture 25:259–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. (1984). Use, misuse and role of multiple-comparison procedures in ecological and agricultural entomology. Environmental Entomology 13:635–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keuls, M. (1952). The use of the “Studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1:112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. M. (1978). If Galileo published in HortScience. HortScience 13:504–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. M., (1981). Interpretation and presentation of results. HortScience 13:637–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, T. M. & Hills, F. J. (1976). Agricultural Experimentation (Design and Analysis). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Mead, R. & Pike, D. J. (1975). A review of response surface methodology from a biometric viewpoint. Biometrics 31:803–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mize, C. W. & Schultz, R. C. (1985). Comparing treatment means correctly and appropriately. Canadian journal of Forestry Research 15: 1142–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, P. M. & Thompson, B. K. (1981). Presentation of experimental results. Canadian journal of Plant Science 61:799–802Google Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1971). Contribution to the discussion of O'Neill and Wetherill (1971). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B36:244–246.Google Scholar
Newman, D. (1939). The distribution of range in samples from a normal population expressed in terms of an independent estimate of standard deviation. Biometrika 31:20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'brien, P. C. (1983). The appropriateness of analysis of variance and multiple comparison procedures. Biometrics 39:787–788.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'neill, R. & Wetherill, G. B. (1971). The present state of multiple comparison methods. journal of The Royal Statistical Society B33:218–241.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1965). Biological Statistics: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1992 a). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. I. Contrasts of interest. Experimental Agriculture 28:245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C. (1992 b). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. II. Some standard contrasts. Experimental Agriculture 28:375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, S. C., Clarke, G. M., Dyke, G. V. & Kempson, R. E. (1988). A Manual of Crop Experimentation (Chapter 5). London: Charles Griffin; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perry, J. N. (1986). Multiple comparison procedures: A dissenting view. journal of Economic Entomology 79:1149–1155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, R. G. (1977). Use and misuse of multiple comparison procedures. Agronomy journal 69:205–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plackett, R. L. (1971). Contribution to the discussion of O'Neill and Wetherill (1971). journal of The Royal Statistical Society B33:242–244.Google Scholar
Preece, D. A. (1982). The design and analysis of experiments: What has gone wrong? Utilitas Mathemalica 21A:210–244.Google Scholar
Tharp, W. H., Wadleigh, C. H. & Barker, H. D. (1941). Some problems in handling and interpreting plant disease data in complex factorial designs. Phytopathology 31:26–48.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing individual treatment means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5:99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical Science 6:100–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, W. G. (1986). On the presentation of statistical analysis: reason or ritual. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 16:1185–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar