On 2 Mar 2001 07:27:16 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esa M. Rantanen)
wrote:
[ snip, detail ]
> contingency table. I have used a Chi-Sq. analysis to determine if there is
> a statisitcally significant difference between the (treatment) groups (all
> 4!), and indeed there is. I assume, however, tha
Hi, Esa!
You've had a couple of responses; here's another.
You state "pairwise comparisons"; but it strikes me as at least
possible that you might want (or might _also_ want) to consider more
complex comparisons if any such comparisons seemed to offer a more
parsimonious (or
At 08:43 AM 3/2/01 -0600, Esa M. Rantanen wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>I have a question concerning pairwise comparisons between four treatment
>conditions. My experience is mostly with ANOVA, and (I think!) I can
>understand the reasoning for the use of multiple comparison procedures
>(e.g., Duncan's, Tu
It sounds to me like are are dealing with a comparison of four
proportions... Why can't you follow up the initial test with the six
pairwise tests of proportions, using some type of Bonferroni
correction... There's the Holm modification and the FDR procedure, both of
which give adequate protection
Dear All:
I have a question concerning pairwise comparisons between four treatment
conditions. My experience is mostly with ANOVA, and (I think!) I can
understand the reasoning for the use of multiple comparison procedures
(e.g., Duncan's, Tukey's, or LSD) instead of individual t-tests between
c
