Testing multiple outcomes in repeated measures designs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates procedures for controlling the familywise error rate (FWR) when testing hypotheses about multiple, correlated outcome variables in repeated measures (RM) designs. A content analysis of RM research articles published in 4 psychology journals revealed that 3 quarters of studies tested hypotheses about 2 or more outcome variables. Several procedures originally proposed for testing multiple outcomes in 2-group designs are extended to 2-group RM designs. The investigated procedures include 2 modified Bonferroni procedures that adjust the level of significance, alpha, for the effective number of outcomes and a permutation step-down (PSD) procedure. The FWR, any-variable power, and all-variable power are investigated in a Monte Carlo study. One modified Bonferroni procedure frequently resulted in inflated FWRs, whereas the PSD procedure controlled the FWR. The PSD procedure could be substantially more powerful than the conventional Bonferroni procedure, which does not account for dependencies among the outcome variables. However, the difference in power between the PSD procedure, which does account for these dependencies, and Hochberg's step-up procedure, which does not, were negligible. A numeric example illustrates implementation of these multiple-testing procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.231 | 0.562 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".