Robust tests of equivalence for <i>k</i> independent groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common question of interest to researchers in psychology is the equivalence of two or more groups. Failure to reject the null hypothesis of traditional hypothesis tests such as the ANOVA F-test (i.e., H0 : μ(1) = ... = μ(k)) does not imply the equivalence of the population means. Researchers interested in determining the equivalence of k independent groups should apply a one-way test of equivalence (e.g., Wellek, 2003). The goals of this study were to investigate the robustness of the one-way Wellek test of equivalence to violations of homogeneity of variance assumption, and compare the Type I error rates and power of the Wellek test with a heteroscedastic version which was based on the logic of the one-way Welch (1951) F-test. The results indicate that the proposed Wellek-Welch test was insensitive to violations of the homogeneity of variance assumption, whereas the original Wellek test was not appropriate when the population variances were not equal.
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 | 0.177 | 0.654 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".