Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/205662
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBlanca Mena, M. José-
dc.contributor.authorArnau Gras, Jaume-
dc.contributor.authorGarcía-Castro, F. Javier-
dc.contributor.authorAlarcón Postigo, Rafael-
dc.contributor.authorBono Cabré, Roser-
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-13T17:00:42Z-
dc.date.available2024-01-13T17:00:42Z-
dc.date.issued2023-08-30-
dc.identifier.issn1664-1078-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/205662-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: One-way repeated measures ANOVA requires sphericity. Research indicates that violation of this assumption has an important impact on Type I error. Although more advanced alternative procedures exist, most classical texts recommend the use of adjusted F-tests, which are frequently employed because they are intuitive, easy to apply, and available in most statistical software. Adjusted F-tests differ in the procedure used to estimate the corrective factor ε, the most common being the Greenhouse-Geisser (F-GG) and Huynh-Feldt (F-HF) adjustments. Although numerous studies have analyzed the robustness of these procedures, the results are inconsistent, thus highlighting the need for further research. Methods: The aim of this simulation study was to analyze the performance of the Fstatistic, F-GG, and F-HF in terms of Type I error and power in one-way designs with normal data under a variety of conditions that may be encountered in real research practice. Values of ε were fixed according to the Greenhouse–Geisser procedure (ε). We manipulated the number of repeated measures (3, 4, and 6) and sample size (from 10 to 300), with ε values ranging from the lower to its upper limit. Results: Overall, the results showed that the F-statistic becomes more liberal as sphericity violation increases, whereas both F-HF and F-GG control Type I error; of the two, F-GG is more conservative, especially with large values of ε and small samples. Discussion: If different statistical conclusions follow from application of the two tests, we recommend using F-GG for ε values below 0.60, and F-HF for ε values equal to or above 0.60.-
dc.format.extent11 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherFrontiers Media-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1192453-
dc.relation.ispartofFrontiers in Psychology, 2023, vol. 14, 1192453-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1192453-
dc.rightscc-by (c) Blanca, M. J. et al., 2023-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/-
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Psicologia Social i Psicologia Quantitativa)-
dc.subject.classificationModels lineals (Estadística)-
dc.subject.classificationAnàlisi de variància-
dc.subject.classificationCiències socials-
dc.subject.otherLinear models (Statistics)-
dc.subject.otherAnalysis of variance-
dc.subject.otherSocial sciences-
dc.titleRepeated Measures ANOVA and adjusted F-tests when sphericity is violated: Which procedure is best? -
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.identifier.idgrec741251-
dc.date.updated2024-01-13T17:00:42Z-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Psicologia Social i Psicologia Quantitativa)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
838309.pdf4.28 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons