| dbo:abstract
|
- Pseudoreplication (sometimes unit of analysis error) has many definitions. Pseudoreplication was originally defined in 1984 by as the use of inferential statistics to test for treatment effects with data from experiments where either treatments are not replicated (though samples may be) orreplicates are not statistically independent. Subsequently, Millar and Anderson identified it as a special case of inadequate specification of random factors where both random and fixed factors are present. It is sometimes narrowly interpreted as an inflation of the number of samples or replicates which are not statistically independent. This definition omits the confounding of unit and treatment effects in a misspecified F-ratio. In practice, incorrect F-ratios for statistical tests of fixed effects often arise from a default F-ratio that is formed over the error rather the mixed term. Lazic defined pseudoreplication as a problem of correlated samples where correlation is not taken into account when computing the confidence interval for the sample mean. For the effect of serial or temporal correlation also see Markov chain central limit theorem. The problem of inadequate specification arises when treatments are assigned to units that are subsampled and the treatment F-ratio in an analysis of variance (ANOVA) table is formed with respect to the residual mean square rather than with respect to the among unit mean square. The F-ratio relative to the within unit mean square is vulnerable to the confounding of treatment and unit effects, especially when experimental unit number is small (e.g. four tank units, two tanks treated, two not treated, several subsamples per tank). The problem is eliminated by forming the F-ratio relative to the correct mean square in the ANOVA table (tank by treatment MS in the example above), where this is possible. The problem is addressed by the use of mixed models. Hurlbert reported "pseudoreplication" in 48% of the studies he examined, that used inferential statistics. Several studies examining scientific papers published up to 2016 similarly found about half of the papers were suspected of pseudoreplication. When time and resources limit the number of experimental units, and unit effects cannot be eliminated statistically by testing over the unit variance, it is important to use other sources of information to evaluate the degree to which an F-ratio is confounded by unit effects. (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 7789 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:date
| |
| dbp:reason
|
- contains errors and outdated information (en)
|
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| gold:hypernym
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- Pseudoreplication (sometimes unit of analysis error) has many definitions. Pseudoreplication was originally defined in 1984 by as the use of inferential statistics to test for treatment effects with data from experiments where either treatments are not replicated (though samples may be) orreplicates are not statistically independent. Subsequently, Millar and Anderson identified it as a special case of inadequate specification of random factors where both random and fixed factors are present. It is sometimes narrowly interpreted as an inflation of the number of samples or replicates which are not statistically independent. This definition omits the confounding of unit and treatment effects in a misspecified F-ratio. In practice, incorrect F-ratios for statistical tests of fixed effects of (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |