Effects of Covariance Heterogeneity on Three Procedures for Analyzing Multivariate Repeated Measures Designs

Empirical Type I error and power rates were estimated for (a) the doubly multivariate model, (b) the Welch-James multivariate solution developed by Keselman, Carriere and Lix (1993) using Johansen's results (1980), and for (c) the multivariate version of the modified Brown-Forsythe (1974) procedure. The performance of these procedures was investigated by testing within- blocks sources of variation in a multivariate split-plot design containing unequal covariance matrices. The results indicate that the doubly multivariate model did not provide effective Type I error control while the Welch-James procedure provided robust and powerful tests of the within-subjects main effect, however, this approach provided liberal tests of the interaction effect. The results also indicate that the modified Brown-Forsythe procedure provided robust tests of within-subjects main and interaction effects, especially when the design was balanced or when group sizes and covariance matrices were positively paired.     

A practical method for analyzing factorial designs with heteroscedastic data

The Type I error rates and powers of three recent tests for analyzing nonorthogonal factorial designs under departures from the assumptions of homogeneity and normality were evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. Specifically, this work compared the performance of the modified Brown-Forsythe procedure, the generalization of Box's method proposed by Brunner, Dette, and Munk, and the mixed-model procedure adjusted by the Kenward-Roger solution available in the SAS statistical package. With regard to robustness, the three approaches adequately controlled Type I error when the data were generated from symmetric distributions; however, this study's results indicate that, when the data were extracted from asymmetric distributions, the modified Brown-Forsythe approach controlled the Type I error slightly better than the other procedures. With regard to sensitivity, the higher power rates were obtained when the analyses were done with the MIXED procedure of the SAS program. Furthermore, results also identified that, when the data were generated from symmetric distributions, little power was sacrificed by using the generalization of Box's method in place of the modified Brown-Forsythe procedure.     

Robust tests for multivariate factorial designs under heteroscedasticity

The question of how to analyze several multivariate normal mean vectors when normality and covariance homogeneity assumptions are violated is considered in this article. For the two-way MANOVA layout, we address this problem adapting results presented by Brunner, Dette, and Munk (BDM; 1997) and Vallejo and Ato (modified Brown-Forsythe [MBF]; 2006) in the context of univariate factorial and split-plot designs and a multivariate version of the linear model (MLM) to accommodate heterogeneous data. Furthermore, we compare these procedures with the Welch-James (WJ) approximate degrees of freedom multivariate statistics based on ordinary least squares via Monte Carlo simulation. Our numerical studies show that of the methods evaluated, only the modified versions of the BDM and MBF procedures were robust to violations of underlying assumptions. The MLM approach was only occasionally liberal, and then by only a small amount, whereas the WJ procedure was often liberal if the interactive effects were involved in the design, particularly when the number of dependent variables increased and total sample size was small. On the other hand, it was also found that the MLM procedure was uniformly more powerful than its most direct competitors. The overall success rate was 22.4% for the BDM, 36.3% for the MBF, and 45.0% for the MLM.     

Evaluating the robustness of repeated measures analyses: The case of small sample sizes and nonnormal data

Repeated measures analyses of variance are the method of choice in many studies from experimental psychology and the neurosciences. Data from these fields are often characterized by small sample sizes, high numbers of factor levels of the within-subjects factor(s), and nonnormally distributed response variables such as response times. For a design with a single within-subjects factor, we investigated Type I error control in univariate tests with corrected degrees of freedom, the multivariate approach, and a mixed-model (multilevel) approach (SAS PROC MIXED) with Kenward–Roger’s adjusted degrees of freedom. We simulated multivariate normal and nonnormal distributions with varied population variance–covariance structures (spherical and nonspherical), sample sizes (N), and numbers of factor levels (K). For normally distributed data, as expected, the univariate approach with Huynh–Feldt correction controlled the Type I error rate with only very few exceptions, even if samples sizes as low as three were combined with high numbers of factor levels. The multivariate approach also controlled the Type I error rate, but it requires N ≥ K. PROC MIXED often showed acceptable control of the Type I error rate for normal data, but it also produced several liberal or conservative results. For nonnormal data, all of the procedures showed clear deviations from the nominal Type I error rate in many conditions, even for sample sizes greater than 50. Thus, none of these approaches can be considered robust if the response variable is nonnormally distributed. The results indicate that both the variance heterogeneity and covariance heterogeneity of the population covariance matrices affect the error rates.     

Robust nonorthogonal analyses revisited: An update based on trimmed means

Three approaches to the analysis of main and interaction effect hypotheses in nonorthogonal designs were compared in a 2×2 design for data that was neither normal in form nor equal in variance. The approaches involved either least squares or robust estimators of central tendency and variability and/or a test statistic that either pools or does not pool sources of variance. Specifically, we compared the ANOVA F test which used trimmed means and Winsorized variances, the Welch-James test with the usual least squares estimators for central tendency and variability and the Welch-James test using trimmed means and Winsorized variances. As hypothesized, we found that the latter approach provided excellent Type I error control, whereas the former two did not.Financial support for this research was provided by grants to the first author from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (#OGP0015855) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (#410-95-0006). The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Associate Editor as well as the reviewers who provided valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.     

A robust approach for analyzing unbalanced factorial designs with fixed levels

The goal of this study was to investigate the performance of Hall’s transformation of the Brunner-Dette-Munk (BDM) and Welch-James (WJ) test statistics and Box-Cox’s data transformation in factorial designs when normality and variance homogeneity assumptions were violated separately and jointly. On the basis of unweighted marginal means, we performed a simulation study to explore the operating characteristics of the methods proposed for a variety of distributions with small sample sizes. Monte Carlo simulation results showed that when data were sampled from symmetric distributions, the error rates of the original BDM and WJ tests were scarcely affected by the lack of normality and homogeneity of variance. In contrast, when data were sampled from skewed distributions, the original BDM and WJ rates were not well controlled. Under such circumstances, the results clearly revealed that Hall’s transformation of the BDM and WJ tests provided generally better control of Type I error rates than did the same tests based on Box-Cox’s data transformation. Among all the methods considered in this study, we also found that Hall’s transformation of the BDM test yielded the best control of Type I errors, although it was often less powerful than either of the WJ tests when both approaches reasonably controlled the error rates.     

Mixed-model pairwise multiple comparisons of repeated measures means

One approach to the analysis of repeated measures data allows researchers to model the covariance structure of the data rather than presume a certain structure, as is the case with conventional univariate and multivariate test statistics. This mixed-model approach was evaluated for testing all possible pairwise differences among repeated measures marginal means in a Between-Subjects x Within-Subjects design. Specifically, the authors investigated Type I error and power rates for a number of simultaneous and stepwise multiple comparison procedures using SAS (1999) PROC MIXED in unbalanced designs when normality and covariance homogeneity assumptions did not hold. J. P. Shaffer's (1986) sequentially rejective step-down and Y. Hochberg's (1988) sequentially acceptive step-up Bonferroni procedures, based on an unstructured covariance structure, had superior Type I error control and power to detect true pairwise differences across the investigated conditions.     

Multivariate repeated measures designs

In the social, behavioral, and health researches it is a common strategy to collect data along time on more than one group of participants on multiple dependent variables. To analyse this kind of data is very complicated due to the correlations between the measures taken in different points of the time, and between the answers. Usually to analyse these data the multivariate mixed model, or the doubly multivariate model, are the most frequent approaches. Both of them require combined multivariate normality, equal covariance matrices, independence between the observations of different participants, complete measurements on all subjects, and time-independent covariates. When one ore more of these assumptions are not accomplished these approaches do not control in the correct way the Type I error, and this affects the validity and the accuracy of the inferences. In this paper some solutions that solve the problems with the error Type I will be shown. Several programs for a correct realization of the analyses through the SAS Proc Mixed procedure are presented.     

On Selecting Tests for Equality of Two Normal Mean Vectors

The conventional approach for testing the equality of two normal mean vectors is to test first the equality of covariance matrices, and if the equality assumption is tenable, then use the two-sample Hotelling T ² test. Otherwise one can use one of the approximate tests for the multivariate Behrens–Fisher problem. In this article, we study the properties of the Hotelling T ² test, the conventional approach, and one of the best approximate invariant tests (Krishnamoorthy & Yu, 2004) for the Behrens–Fisher problem. Our simulation studies indicated that the conventional approach often leads to inflated Type I error rates. The approximate test not only controls Type I error rates very satisfactorily when covariance matrices were arbitrary but was also comparable with the T ² test when covariance matrices were equal.     

Regression-based techniques for statistical decision making in single-case designs

The present study evaluates the performance of four methods for estimating regression coefficients used to make statistical decisions about intervention effectiveness in single-case designs. Ordinary least square estimation is compared to two correction techniques dealing with general trend and a procedure that eliminates autocorrelation whenever it is present. Type I error rates and statistical power are studied for experimental conditions defined by the presence or absence of treatment effect (change in level or in slope), general trend, and serial dependence. The results show that empirical Type I error rates do not approach the nominal ones in the presence of autocorrelation or general trend when ordinary and generalized least squares are applied. The techniques controlling trend show lower false alarm rates, but prove to be insufficiently sensitive to existing treatment effects. Consequently, the use of the statistical significance of the regression coefficients for detecting treatment effects is not recommended for short data series.     

Univariate repeated measures techniques applied to multivariate data

Repeated measures designs in psychology have traditionally been analyzed by the univariate mixed model approach, in which the repeated measures effect is tested against an error term based on the subject by treatment interaction. This paper considers the extension of this analysis to designs in which the individual repeated measures are multivariate. Sufficient conditions for a valid multivariate mixed model analysis are given, and a test is described to determine whether or not given data satisfy these conditions.     

Should providers of treatment be regarded as a random factor? If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it: a comment on Siemer and Joormann (2003)

In their criticism of B. E. Wampold and R. C. Serlin's analysis of treatment effects in nested designs, M. Siemer and J. Joormann argued that providers of services should be considered a fixed factor because typically providers are neither randomly selected from a population of providers nor randomly assigned to treatments, and statistical power to detect treatment effects is greater in the fixed than in the mixed model. The authors of the present article argue that if providers are considered fixed, conclusions about the treatment must be conditioned on the specific providers in the study, and they show that in this case generalizing beyond these providers incurs inflated Type I error rates.     

A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects

A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.     

Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.     

Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling

A simulation study investigated the effects of skewness and kurtosis on level-specific maximum likelihood (ML) test statistics based on normal theory in multilevel structural equation models. The levels of skewness and kurtosis at each level were manipulated in multilevel data, and the effects of skewness and kurtosis on level-specific ML test statistics were examined. When the assumption of multivariate normality was violated, the level-specific ML test statistics were inflated, resulting in Type I error rates that were higher than the nominal level for the correctly specified model. Q-Q plots of the test statistics against a theoretical chi-square distribution showed that skewness led to a thicker upper tail and kurtosis led to a longer upper tail of the observed distribution of the level-specific ML test statistic for the correctly specified model.     

A Person Fit Test For Irt Models For Polytomous Items

A person fit test based on the Lagrange multiplier test is presented for three item response theory models for polytomous items: the generalized partial credit model, the sequential model, and the graded response model. The test can also be used in the framework of multidimensional ability parameters. It is shown that the Lagrange multiplier statistic can take both the effects of estimation of the item parameters and the estimation of the person parameters into account. The Lagrange multiplier statistic has an asymptotic χ²-distribution. The Type I error rate and power are investigated using simulation studies. Results show that test statistics that ignore the effects of estimation of the persons’ ability parameters have decreased Type I error rates and power. Incorporating a correction to account for the effects of the estimation of the persons’ ability parameters results in acceptable Type I error rates and power characteristics; incorporating a correction for the estimation of the item parameters has very little additional effect. It is investigated to what extent the three models give comparable results, both in the simulation studies and in an example using data from the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised.     

Robust step‐down tests for multivariate independent group designs

A composite step‐down procedure, in which a set of step‐down tests are summarized collectively with Fisher's combination statistic, was considered to test for multivariate mean equality in two‐group designs. An approximate degrees of freedom (ADF) composite procedure based on trimmed/Winsorized estimators and a non‐pooled estimate of error variance is proposed, and compared to a composite procedure based on trimmed/Winsorized estimators and a pooled estimate of error variance. The step‐down procedures were also compared to Hotelling's T² and Johansen's ADF global procedure based on trimmed estimators in a simulation study. Type I error rates of the pooled step‐down procedure were sensitive to covariance heterogeneity in unbalanced designs; error rates were similar to those of Hotelling's T² across all of the investigated conditions. Type I error rates of the ADF composite step‐down procedure were insensitive to covariance heterogeneity and less sensitive to the number of dependent variables when sample size was small than error rates of Johansen's test. The ADF composite step‐down procedure is recommended for testing hypotheses of mean equality in two‐group designs except when the data are sampled from populations with different degrees of multivariate skewness.     

Type I error rates and power analyses for single-point sensitivity measures

Experiments often produce a hit rate and a false alarm rate in each of two conditions. These response rates are summarized into a single-point sensitivity measure such as d', and t tests are conducted to test for experimental effects. Using large-scale Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluate the Type I error rates and power that result from four commonly used single-point measures: d', A', percent correct, and gamma. We also test a newly proposed measure called gammaC. For all measures, we consider several ways of handling cases in which false alarm rate = 0 or hit rate = 1. The results of our simulations indicate that power is similar for these measures but that the Type I error rates are often unacceptably high. Type I errors are minimized when the selected sensitivity measure is theoretically appropriate for the data.     

A Composite Likelihood Inference in Latent Variable Models for Ordinal Longitudinal Responses

The paper proposes a composite likelihood estimation approach that uses bivariate instead of multivariate marginal probabilities for ordinal longitudinal responses using a latent variable model. The model considers time-dependent latent variables and item-specific random effects to be accountable for the interdependencies of the multivariate ordinal items. Time-dependent latent variables are linked with an autoregressive model. Simulation results have shown composite likelihood estimators to have a small amount of bias and mean square error and as such they are feasible alternatives to full maximum likelihood. Model selection criteria developed for composite likelihood estimation are used in the applications. Furthermore, lower-order residuals are used as measures-of-fit for the selected models.     

THE ALPHA PERCENTAGE AND EXPERIMENTWISE ERROR RATES IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

Experimentwise error rates of the type proposed by Ryan (1959) are discussed and contrasted with anew measure of the likelihood that the results of a series of significance tests are Type I errors. This new measure, the Alpha Percentage (a%), shares the advantages of experimentwise error rates over individual alpha levels in reducing Type I errors in communication research, but the Alpha Percentage has much greater power than currently used experimentwise error rates to detect significant effects. Four arguments against the use of experimentwise error procedures are discussed and EW, EP, and a% rates are reported for Communication Monographs and Human Communication Research.