Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 735–747 | Cite as

Analysis of variance for repeated measures designs with word materials as a nested random or fixed factor

  • Toni RietveldEmail author
  • Roeland van Hout
Article

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.

Keywords

Variance Component Common Variance Decision Procedure Psycholinguistic Research Repeat Measure Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (2002).Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman, E. B. (1979). Generalization effects vs. random effects: Is σSL2 a source of Type 1 or Type 2 error?Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gornbein, J. A., Lazaro, C. G., &Little, R. A. (1992). Incomplete data in repeated measures analysis.Statistical Methods in Medical Research,1, 275–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Huynh, H. S., &Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom.Journal of Educational Statistics,1, 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kirk, R. E. (1995).Experimental designs: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Belmont: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Little, R. J. A., &Rubin, D. B. (1987).Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Maxwell, S. E., &Bray, J. H. (1986). Robustness of the quasiF statistic to violations of sphericity.Psychological Bulletin,99, 416–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Quené, H., &van den Bergh, H. (2004). On multi-level modeling of data from repeated measures designs: A tutorial.Speech Communication,43, 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rietveld, T., &van Hout, R. (2005).Statistics in language research: Analysis of variance. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rietveld, T., van Hout, R., &Ernestus, M. (2004). Pitfalls in corpus linguistics.Computers & the Humanities,38, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance.Annual Review of Psychology,38, 29–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., &Michels, K. M. (1991).Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations