Abstract
This article is about analysis of data obtained in repeated measures designs in psycholinguistics and related disciplines with items (words) nested within treatment (5 type of words). Statistics tested in a series of computer simulations are:F 1,F 2,F 1 &F 2,F′, minF′, plus two decision procedures, the one suggested by Forster and Dickinson (1976) and one suggested by the authors of this article. The most common test statistic,F 1 &F 2, turns out to be wrong, but all alternative statistics suggested in the literature have problems too. The two decision procedures perform much better, especially the new one, because it systematically takes into account the subject by treatment interaction and the degree of word variability.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allison, P. D. (2002).Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Baayen, R. H., Tweedie, F. J., &Schreuder, R. (2002). The subjects as a simple random effect fallacy: Subject variability and morphological family effects in the mental lexicon.Brain & Language,81, 55–65.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 335–359.
Coleman, E. B. (1979). Generalization effects vs. random effects: Is σ 2SL a source of Type 1 or Type 2 error?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 243–256.
Forster, K. I., &Dickinson, R. G. (1976). More on the languageas-fixed-effect fallacy: Monte Carlo estimates of error rates forF1,F2,F′, and MinF′.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,15, 135–142.
Gornbein, J. A., Lazaro, C. G., &Little, R. A. (1992). Incomplete data in repeated measures analysis.Statistical Methods in Medical Research,1, 275–295.
Gueorguieva, R., &Krystal, J. K. (2004). More over ANOVA: Progress in analyzing repeated measures data and its reflection in papers published in the Archives of General Psychiatry.Archives of General Psychiatry,61, 310–317.
Huynh, H. S., &Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom.Journal of Educational Statistics,1, 69–82.
Kirk, R. E. (1995).Experimental designs: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.),Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278–292). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Little, R. J. A., &Rubin, D. B. (1987).Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
Maxwell, S. E., &Bray, J. H. (1986). Robustness of the quasiF statistic to violations of sphericity.Psychological Bulletin,99, 416–421.
Quené, H., &van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial.Speech Communication,43, 103–121.
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., &Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.Journal of Memory & Language,41, 416–426.
Rietveld, T., &van Hout, R. (2005).Statistics in language research: Analysis of variance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rietveld, T., van Hout, R., &Ernestus, M. (2004). Pitfalls in corpus linguistics.Computers & the Humanities,38, 343–362.
Schreuder, R., Burani, C., &Baaijen, R. H. (2003). Parsing and semantic opacity. In E. M. H. Assink & D. Sandra (Eds.),Reading complex words (pp. 159–189). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Wickens, T. D., &Keppel, G. (1983). On the choice of design and of test statistics in the analysis of experiments with sampled materials.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,22, 296–309.
Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance.Annual Review of Psychology,38, 29–60.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., &Michels, K. M. (1991).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rietveld, T., van Hout, R. Analysis of variance for repeated measures designs with word materials as a nested random or fixed factor. Behavior Research Methods 39, 735–747 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192964
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192964