Re: [R] Is using glht with Tukey for lme post-hoc comparisons an appropriate substitute to TukeyHSD?

Hello Richard, Thank you for all of your feedback and for introducing me to the interaction_average argument. I realize that it is probably quite simple, but after some research, I am still having difficulty understanding how the interaction_average argument changes the calculation of

Re: [R] Is using glht with Tukey for lme post-hoc comparisons an appropriate substitute to TukeyHSD?

Anne, Thank you for writing back, and for including your data. I have two things here. First, I ran an a analysis of your data and have my observations on interpretation. Second, I answer your general question about glht and TukeyHSD when there are interactions. I illustrate how to get the

Re: [R] Is using glht with Tukey for lme post-hoc comparisons an appropriate substitute to TukeyHSD?

Hello Richard, Thank you so much for getting back to me. In the ?glht example, the confidence intervals are the same and the p-values are very similar. I ran a 2-way ANOVA and compared the results for the glht code with Tukey and TukeyHSD for Treatment, which was a significant main

[R] Is using glht with Tukey for lme post-hoc comparisons an appropriate substitute to TukeyHSD?

Hello, I am trying to determine the most appropriate way to run post-hoc comparisons on my lme model. I had originally planned to use Tukey HSD method as I am interested in all possible comparisons between my treatment levels. TukeyHSD, however, does not work with lme. The only other

Re: [R] Is using glht with Tukey for lme post-hoc comparisons an appropriate substitute to TukeyHSD?

glht is probably what you should be using. Both TukeyHSD and glht give essesntially identical confidence intervals for the example in ?glht. What aren't you satisfied with? amod - aov(breaks ~ tension, data = warpbreaks) confint(glht(amod, linfct = mcp(tension = Tukey))) TukeyHSD(amod) On Mon,