"Marjorie S. Hardy" wrote: > Upon the advice of Tipsters, I read the American Psychologist article on > "Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and > explanations." In that article, the Task Force on Statistical > Significance advises ". . . don't cling to obsolete methods (e.g., > Newman-Keuls or Duncan post hoc tests). . . " (p. 10). When did these > tests become obsolete and why? Suddenly, I'm feeling very old.
N-K doesn't actualy control familywsie error very well (except possibly in the sole case of a 3-cell, independent-measures, 1-way ANOVA -- see David Howell's text, who hung on to N-K longer than most, but has now more or less abandoned it). Regards, -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 phone: 416-736-5115 ext.66164 fax: 416-736-5814 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
