Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T05:37:55.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment on Levy’s “An Empirical Comparison of the Z-variance and Box-Scheffé Tests for Homogeneity of Variance”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Charles G. Martin
Charles G. Martin*
Affiliation:
U. S. Civil Service Commission
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Charles G. Martin, Personnel Research and Development Center, U. S. Civil Service Commission, Washington, D. C. 20415. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U. S. Civil Service Commission.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An alternative selection of subsample sizes for the Box-Scheffé test is compared to the single m used in Levy, “An empirical comparison of the Z-variance and Box-Scheffé tests for homogeneity of variance.” Use of the alternative subsample sizes is shown to suggest greater power for the Box-Scheffé test, although the test would still be less powerful than the Z-variance test. Because of the nonrobustness of the Z-variance test and the robustness of the Box-Scheffé test, the latter is recommended as a general technique unless an experimenter has assurance that all populations in the experiment are normal. Alternative techniques are also considered.

Keywords

variance testingtests of dispersionanalysis of variance
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 551 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 The Psychometric Society

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.)

Footnotes

The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U. S. Civil Service Commission.

References

Reference Notes

Martin, C. G. Testing variances with the analysis of variance on small and unequal samples. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1975.Google Scholar
Martin, C. G. and Games, P. A. Selection of subsample sizes for the Bartlett and Kendall test of homogeneity of variance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C., April, 1975.Google Scholar
Martin, C. G. Analysis of variance tests for homogeneity of variance. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society Spring Meeting, Murray Hill, New Jersey, April, 1976.Google Scholar

References

Bartlett, M. S. and Kendall, D. G. The statistical analysis of variance-heterogeneity and the logarithmic transformation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 1946, Supplement 8, 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. B. and Forsythe, A. B. Robust tests for the equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1974, 69, 364–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, G. E. P. Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika, 1953, 40, 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Games, P. A., Winkler, H. B., and Probert, D. A. Robust tests for homogeneity of variance. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1972, 32, 887–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gartside, P. S. A study of methods for comparing several variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1972, 67, 342–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layard, M. W. J. Robust large-sample tests for homogeneity of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1973, 68, 195–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, K. J. An empirical comparison of the Z-variance and Box-Scheffé tests for homogeneity of variance. Psychometrika, 1975, 40, 519–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. G. Jr. Jackknifing variances. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1968, 39, 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, J. L. Fundamentals of experimental design, 1966, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Overall, J. E. and Woodward, J. A. A simple test for heterogeneity of variance in complex factorial designs. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffé, H. The analysis of variance, 1959, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar