Abstract
Repeated measures designs are common in experimental psychology. Because of the correlational structure in these designs, the calculation and interpretation of confidence intervals is nontrivial. One solution was provided by Loftus and Masson (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1:476–490, 1994). This solution, although widely adopted, has the limitation of implying samesize confidence intervals for all factor levels, and therefore does not allow for the assessment of variance homogeneity assumptions (i.e., the circularity assumption, which is crucial for the repeated measures ANOVA). This limitation and the method’s perceived complexity have sometimes led scientists to use a simplified variant, based on a persubject normalization of the data (Bakeman & McArthur, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 28:584–589, 1996; Cousineau, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 1:42–45, 2005; Morey, Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 4:61–64, 2008; Morrison & Weaver, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 27:52–56, 1995). We show that this normalization method leads to biased results and is uninformative with regard to circularity. Instead, we provide a simple, intuitive generalization of the Loftus and Masson method that allows for assessment of the circularity assumption.
Confidence intervals are important tools for data analysis. In psychology, confidence intervals are of two main sorts. In betweensubjects designs, each subject is measured in only one condition, such that measurements across conditions are typically independent. In withinsubjects (repeated measures) designs, each subject is measured in multiple conditions. This has the advantage of reducing variability caused by differences among the subjects. However, the correlational structures in the data cause difficulties in specifying confidenceinterval size.
Figure 1a shows hypothetical data from Loftus and Masson (1994). Each curve depicts the performance of one subject in three exposureduration conditions. Most subjects show a consistent pattern—better performance with longer exposure duration—which is reflected by a significant effect in repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) [F(2, 18) = 43, p < .001].
However, this withinsubjects effect is not reflected by traditional standard errors of the mean (SEM; Fig. 1b), as calculated with the formula.
where SEM _{ j } ^{betw} is the SEM in condition j, n the number of subjects, y _{ ij } the dependent variable (DV) for subject i in condition j, and \( \overline {{y_{{.j}}}} \) the mean DV across subjects in condition j.
The discrepancy occurs because the SEM ^{betw} includes both the subjectbycondition interaction variance—the denominator of the ANOVA’s F ratio—and in addition the betweensubjects variance, which is irrelevant in the F ratio. In our example, subjects show highly variable overall performance, which hides the consistent pattern of withinsubject effects. This is common: The betweensubjects variability is typically larger than the subjectbycondition interaction variability. Therefore, the SEM ^{betw} is inappropriate for assessing withinsubjects effects. Before discussing solutions to this shortcoming, we will offer some general comments about error bars.
Error bars
Error bars reflect measurement uncertainty and can have different meanings. For example, they can correspond to SEMs, standard deviations, confidence intervals, or the more recently proposed inferential confidence intervals (Goldstein & Healy, 1995; Tryon, 2001). Each of these statistics stresses one aspect of the data, and each has its virtues. For example, standard deviations might be the first choice in a clinical context where the focus is on a single subject’s performance. In experimental psychology, the mostused statistic is the SEM. For simplicity, we will therefore focus on the SEM, although all of our results can be expressed in terms of any related statistic.
To better understand the SEM, it is helpful to recapitulate two simple “rules of eye” for the interpretation of SEMs. The rules, which we will call the 2 and 3SEM rules, respectively, are equivalent to Cumming and Finch’s (2005) Rules 6 and 7. First, if a single mean (based on n ≥ 10 measurements) is further from a theoretical value (typically zero) than ~2 SEMs, this mean is significantly different (at α = .05) from the theoretical value. Second, if two means (both based on n ≥ 10 measurements) in a betweensubjects design with approximately equal SEMs are further apart than ~3 SEMs, these means are significantly different from one another (at α = .05).^{Footnote 1}
Loftus and Masson (1994) method
Loftus and Masson (1994) offered a solution to the problem that SEM ^{betw} hides withinsubject effects (Fig. 1c). The SEM ^{L&M} is based on the pooled error term of the repeated measures ANOVA and constructed such that the 3SEM rule can be applied when interpreting differences between means. This central feature makes the SEM ^{L&M} in a repeated measures design behave analogously to the SEM ^{betw} in a betweensubjects design.^{Footnote 2}
Normalization method
Although widely accepted, Loftus and Masson’s (1994) method has two limitations: (a) By using the pooled error term, the method assumes circularity, which to a repeated measures design is what the homogeneity of variance (HOV) is to a betweensubjects design. Consequently, all SEM ^{L&M}s are of equal size. This is different from betweensubjects designs, in which the relative sizes of the values of SEM ^{betw} allow for judgments of the HOV assumption. (b) The formulas by Loftus and Masson (1994) are sometimes perceived as unnecessarily complex (Bakeman & McArthur, 1996).
Therefore, Morrison and Weaver (1995), Bakeman and McArthur (1996), Cousineau (2005), and Morey (2008) suggested a simplified method that we call the normalization method. It is based on an illustration of the relationship between within and betweensubjects variances used by Loftus and Masson (1994).^{Footnote 3} Proponents of the normalization method argue that it is simple and allows for judgment of the assumption of circularity.
The normalization method consists of two steps. First, the data are normalized (Fig. 1d). That is, the overall performance levels for all subjects are equated without changing the pattern of withinsubjects effects. Normalized scores are calculated as
where i and j index the subject and factor levels; w _{ ij } and y _{ ij } represent normalized and raw scores, respectively; \( \overline {{y_{{i.}}}} \) is the mean score for subject i, averaged across all conditions; and \( \overline {{y_{{..}}}} \) is the grand mean of all scores. Second, the normalized scores w _{ ij } are treated as if they were from a betweensubjects design. The rationale is that the irrelevant betweensubjects differences are removed, such that now standard computations and the traditional SEM formula can be used on the normalized scores:
with SEM _{ j } ^{norm} being the SEM ^{norm} in condition j and n the number of subjects. The resulting SEM ^{norm}s are shown in Fig. 1e.
The normalization method seems appealing in its simplicity. All that is required is to normalize the withinsubjects data, and then standard methods from betweensubjects designs can be used. However, this method underestimates the SEMs and does not allow for an assessment of circularity.
Problem 1 of the normalization method: SEMs are too small
Figures. 1c and 1e illustrate this problem: all SEM ^{norm} values are smaller than SEM ^{L&M}. This is a systematic bias that occurs because the normalized data, although correlated, are treated as uncorrelated. Consequently, the pooled SEM ^{norm} underestimates the SEM ^{L&M} by a factor of \( \sqrt {{\frac{{J  1}}{J}}} \) (with J being the number of factor levels).^{Footnote 4} Morey (2008) derived this relationship and also suggested that the SEM ^{norm} be corrected. However, this is not a complete solution, because the method still leads to an erroneous view of what circularity means.
Circularity
Betweensubjects ANOVA assumes HOV, and we can assess the plausibility of this assumption by judging whether the SEM ^{betw} values are of similar size. The corresponding assumption for repeated measures ANOVA is circularity (Huynh & Feldt, 1970; Rouanet & Lepine, 1970).
Consider the variance–covariance matrix Σ of a repeated measures design. Circularity is fulfilled if and only if an orthonormal matrix M exists that transforms Σ into a spherical matrix (i.e., with λ on the main diagonal and zero elsewhere), such that
where λ is a scalar and I is the identity matrix (cf. Winer, Brown, & Michels, 1991). Because of this relationship to sphericity, the circularity assumption is sometimes called the sphericity assumption.
We can reformulate circularity in a simple way: Circularity is fulfilled if and only if the variability of all pairwise differences between factor levels is constant (Huynh & Feldt, 1970; Rouanet & Lepine, 1970). Therefore, we can assess circularity by examining the variance of the difference between any two factor levels. Depicting the corresponding SEM, which we describe below, is an easy generalization of the Loftus and Masson (1994) method. Before describing this method, however, we show that the normalization method fails to provide correct information about circularity.
Problem 2 of the normalization method: Erroneous evaluation of circularity
There are different reasons why the normalization method cannot provide a visual assessment of circularity. For example, testing for circularity requires evaluating the variability of all J(J − 1)/2 pairwise differences (J being the number of factor levels), while the normalization method yields only J SEM ^{norm} values to compare. Also, we can construct examples showing clear violations of circularity that are not revealed by the normalization method.
Figure 2 shows such an example for one withinsubjects factor with four levels. The pairwise differences (Fig. 2d) show small variability between levels A and B and levels C and D, but large variability between levels B and C. The normalization method does not indicate this large circularity violation (Fig. 2c). The reason can be seen in Fig. 2b: Normalization propagates the large B and C variability to conditions A and D. Because conditions A and B don’t add much variability themselves, the normalization method creates the wrong impression that circularity holds.
It is instructive to evaluate this example using standard measures of circularity. The Greenhouse–Geisser epsilon (Box, 1954a, 1954b; Greenhouse & Geisser, 1959) attains its lowest value at maximal violation [here, ε _{min} = 1/(J – 1) = .33], while a value of ε _{max} = 1 indicates perfect circularity. In our example, ε = .34, showing the strong violation of circularity (Huynh & Feldt’s, 1976, epsilon leads to the same value). The Mauchly (1940) test also indicates a significant violation of circularity (W = .0001, p < .001) and a repeated measures ANOVA yields a significant effect [F(3, 57) = 3, p = .036], but only if we—erroneously—assume circularity. If we recognize this violation of circularity and perform the Greenhouse–Geisser or Huynh–Feldt corrections, the effect is not significant (both ps = .1). A multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA) also leads to a nonsignificant effect [F(3, 17) = 1.89, p = .17]. In summary, our example shows that the normalization method can hide serious circularity violations. A plot of the SEM of the pairwise differences, on the other hand, clearly indicates the violation.
A better approach: Picturing pairwise differences
As a simple and mathematically correct alternative to the normalization method, we suggest showing all pairwise differences between factor levels with the corresponding SEM (SEM ^{pairedDiff}), as shown in Figs. 1g and 2d. To the degree that these values of SEM ^{pairedDiff} are variable, there is evidence for violation of circularity. Figure 1g shows that for the Loftus and Masson (1994) data, all SEM ^{pairedDiff}s are similar, suggesting no serious circularity violation (which is consistent with standard indices: Greenhouse–Geisser ε = .845, Huynh–Feldt ε = 1, Mauchly test W = .817; p = .45).
The values of SEM ^{pairedDiff} are easy to compute, because only the traditional formulas for the SEM of the differences are needed. Consider the levels k and l of a repeated measure factor. We first calculate the pairwise differences for each subject d _{ i } = y _{ ik } – y _{ il }, then use the traditional formula to calculate the SEM of the mean difference:
This approach is consistent with the Loftus and Masson (1994) method, because pooling the SEM ^{pairedDiff}s results in \( \frac{1}{{\sqrt {2} }}SE{M^{{{\text{L}}\& {\text{M}}}}} \) (Appendix A1). Therefore, we can use this relationship to calculate the SEM ^{L&M} without the inconvenience of extracting the relevant ANOVA error term from the output of a statistical program (another critique of the Loftus & Masson method: Cousineau, 2005; Morey, 2008).
Picturing pairwise differences can supplement numeric methods
Figure 3 illustrates how evaluating SEM ^{pairedDiff} can lead to a surprising result, thereby showing the virtues of our approach. Repeated measures ANOVA shows for these data a clearly nonsignificant result, whether or not we correct for circularity violation [F(3, 117) = 1.2, p = .32; Greenhouse–Geisser ε = .50, p = .30; Huynh–Feldt ε = .51, p = .30]. We show that our method nevertheless detects a strong, significant effect and will guide the researcher to the (in this case) more appropriate multivariate methods.
Inspecting Fig. 3c for circularity violations shows that between conditions D and C there is a very small SEM ^{pairedDiff}, indicating that the pairwise difference between these conditions has much less variability than all of the other pairwise differences. Applying the 2SEM rule indicates that the corresponding difference differs significantly from zero, while no other differences are significant. This is also true, using the Bonferroni correction^{Footnote 5} for multiple testing, as suggested by Maxwell and Delaney (2000).
In short, SEM ^{pairedDiff} indicates that there is a strong circularity violation and a strong effect. Univariate repeated measures ANOVA does not detect this effect, even when corrected for circularity violations. MANOVA, on the other hand, detects the effect [F(3, 37) = 98, p < .001] and is thereby consistent with the result of our approach.^{Footnote 6}
This example shows that the SEM ^{pairedDiff} conveys important information about the correlational structure of the data that can prompt the researcher to use more appropriate methods. No other method discussed in this article would have achieved this.
Practical considerations when picturing pairwise differences
The example above shows that our approach can help the researcher during data analysis. When presenting data to a general readership, a more compact way of presenting the SEM ^{pairedDiff} might be needed, especially for factors with many levels [because the number of pairwise differences can become large; J factor levels will result in J(J – 1)/2 pairwise differences]. If a plot of pairwise differences would be overly tedious, one could (a) present the data as an upper triangular matrix, either in numerical form or as a colorcoded heat map, or (b) present the SEM ^{pairedDiff} together with the SEM ^{L&M} in one single plot, as shown in Fig. 1f. In this plot, the error bars with short crossbars correspond to the SEM ^{pairedDiff} (scaled, see below), and the error bars with long crossbars correspond to the SEM ^{L&M}. The plot gives a correct impression of circularity by means of the scaled SEM ^{pairedDiff}s (if circularity holds, all scaled SEM ^{pairedDiff}s will be similar to SEM ^{L&M}) and allows for application of the 3SEM rule to interpret differences between means. The downside is that it is not immediately apparent which error bars belong to which pair of means. The researcher needs to decide whether compactness of presentation outweighs this limitation.
To create a plot like Fig. 1f, each SEM ^{pairedDiff} is multiplied by \( \frac{1}{{\sqrt {2} }} \) and then plotted as an error bar for each of the two means from which the difference was calculated. The scaling is necessary because we go back from a difference of two means to two single means. The scaling gives us, for each mean, the SEM that would correspond to the SEM of the difference if the two means were independent and had the same variability, such that the 3SEM rule can be applied and the scaled SEM ^{pairedDiff}s are compatible with the SEM ^{L&M}s (Appendix. A1).
Generalization to multifactor experiments

(a.)
Only withinsubjects factors So far, we have discussed only singlefactor designs. If more than one repeated measures factor is present, the SEM ^{pairedDiff} should be calculated across all possible pairwise differences. This simple method is consistent with the Loftus and Masson (1994) method, which also reduces multiple factors to a single factor (e.g., a 3 × 5 design is treated as a singlefactor design with 15 levels).
With regard to circularity, our generalization is slightly stricter than necessary, because we consider the pairwise differences of the variance–covariance matrix for the full comparison (by treating the design as a singlefactor design). If the variance–covariance matrix fulfills circularity for this comparison, then it also fulfills it for all subcomparisons, but not vice versa (Rouanet & Lepine, 1970, Corollary 2). Therefore, it is conceivable that the SEM ^{pairedDiff} values indicate a violation of circularity, but that a specific subcomparison corresponding to one of the repeated measures factors does not. However, we think that the simplicity of our rule outweighs this minor limitation.

(b.)
Mixed designs (within and betweensubjects factors) In mixed designs, an additional complication arises because each group of subjects (i.e., each level of the betweensubjects factors) has its own variancecovariance matrix, all of which are assumed to be homogeneous and circular. Thus, there are two assumptions, HOV and circularity. As was mentioned by Winer et al. (1991, p. 509), “these are, indeed, restrictive assumptions”—hence, even more need for a visual guide to evaluate their plausibility.
Consider one withinsubjects factor and one betweensubjects factor, fully crossed, with equal group sizes. For each level of the betweensubjects factor, we suggest a plot with the means and SEM ^{betw} for all levels of the withinsubjects factor, along with a plot showing the pairwise differences and their SEM ^{pairedDiff} (Fig. 4 and Appendix A2). To evaluate the homogeneity and circularity assumptions, respectively, one would gauge whether all SEM ^{betw} values corresponding to the same level of the withinsubjects factor were roughly equal and whether all possible SEM ^{pairedDiff}s were roughly equal.
Inspecting Fig. 4a shows that Group 2 has higher SEM ^{betw}s than the other groups, suggesting a violation of the HOV assumption. And indeed, the four corresponding Levene (1960) tests, each comparing the variability of the groups at one level of the withinsubjects factor, show a significant deviation from HOV (all Fs > 27, all ps < .001). Our approach reveals that this is due to the higher variability of Group 2. Inspecting Fig. 4b shows that the SEM ^{pairedDiff}s are similar, suggesting that circularity is fullfilled. This, again, is consistent with standard repeated measures methods (Greenhouse–Geisser ε = .960, Huynh–Feldt ε = 1, Mauchly test W = .944, p = .25).
Precautions
Although we believe our approach to be beneficial, it needs to be applied with caution (like any statistical procedure). Strictly speaking, the method only allows judgments about pairwise differences and the circularity assumption; it does not allow judgments of main effects or interactions. For this, we would need pooled error terms and overall averaging, as used in ANOVA. Also, our use of multiple estimates of variability (i.e., for each pairwise difference, a different SEM ^{pairedDiff}) makes each individual SEM ^{pairedDiff} less reliable than an estimate based on the pooled error term. In many situations, however, neither restriction is a serious limitation.
For example, consider Fig. 1g. The SEM ^{pairedDiff} values are consistent, such that the SEM based on the pooled error term will be similar to them (Appendix A1) and that the inherently reduced reliability of the SEM ^{pairedDiff} will be no problem. Each pairwise difference suggests a significant difference from zero, be it interpreted as apriori or posthoc test,^{Footnote 7} or by applying the 2SEM rule of eye. Therefore, a reader seeing only this figure will have an indication that the main effect of the ANOVA is significant. This example again shows how our method can supplement (though not supplant) traditional numerical methods.
Conclusions
We have suggested a simple method to conceptualize variability in repeated measures designs: Calculate the SEM ^{pairedDiff} of all pairwise differences, and plot them. The homogeneity of the SEM ^{pairedDiff} provides an assessment of circularity and is (unlike the normalization method) a valid generalization of the wellestablished Loftus and Masson (1994) method.
Notes
For simplicity, the 3SEM rule treats all comparisons as apriori contrasts and does not take into account problems of multiple testing. Below we provide an example of Bonferroni correction for posthoc testing. Similarly, one could calculate confidence intervals based on Tukey’s range test or similar statistics.
Note that the SEM ^{L&M} only provides information about the differences among within–subject levels. It does not provide information about the absolute value of the DV, for which SEM ^{betw} would be appropriate. It is, however, rare in psychology that absolute values are of interest.
Unfortunately, this illustration has led to some confusion. Although it provides a valid description of the error term in the repeated measures ANOVA, it suggests that the Loftus and Masson (1994) method was based on normalized scores, which is not true. Therefore, the normalization method is not a generalization of the Loftus and Masson method. Also, the critique based on the assumption that the Loftus and Masson method used normalized scores (Blouin & Riopelle, 2005) does not apply.
That the normalization method is biased might confuse some readers, because they remember that we can represent a withinsubjects ANOVA as a betweensubjects ANOVA on the normalized scores (Maxwell & Delaney, 2000, p. 472, note 5 of chap. 11). However, to obtain a correct F test, we would need to deviate from the betweensubjects ANOVA by adjusting the degrees of freedom (Loftus & Loftus, 1988, digression 131, p. 426). This adjustment takes into account that the normalized data are correlated and is not performed by the normalization method.
The Bonferroni correction is this: We have six possible comparisons. Therefore, we need the (100 – 5/6)% = 99.12% criterion of the t distribution with (40 – 1) = 39 degrees of freedom, which is t _{crit} = 2.78. Therefore, all SEMs need to be multiplied by this value (instead of 2, as in the 2SEM rule).
In our example, MANOVA is more appropriate because it does not rely on the assumption of circularity. It has, however, other limitations (mainly for small sample sizes) such that it cannot simply replace univariate ANOVA in general.
As an example, let us calculate the confidence interval (CI) for the difference “2 s–1 s”: (a) Apriori test: The 95% critical value of the t distribution is t _{crit95%}(9) = 2.26, resulting in a CI of 2 ± (0.33 * 2.26) = [1.25, 2.75]. (b) Posthoc test with Bonferroni correction: With J = 3 pairwise comparisons, we need the (100 – 5/3) = 98.33% criterion of the t distribution, which is t _{crit98.33%}(9) = 2.93, and the CI is calculated as 2 ± (0.33*2.93) = [1.03, 2.97].
References
Bakeman, R., & McArthur, D. (1996). Picturing repeated measures: Comments on Loftus, Morrison, and others. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 584–589. doi:10.3758/BF03200546
Blouin, D. C., & Riopelle, A. J. (2005). On confidence intervals for withinsubjects designs. Psychological Methods, 10, 397–412. doi:10.1037/1082989X.10.4.397
Box, G. E. P. (1954a). Some theorems on quadratic form applied in the study of analysis of variance problems: II. Effects of inequality of variance and of correlation between errors in the twoway classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25, 484–498.
Box, G. E. P. (1954b). Some theorems on quadratic forms applied in the study of analysis of variance problems: I. effect of inequality of variance in the oneway classification. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25, 290–302.
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in withinsubject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170–180. doi:10.1037/0003066X.60.2.170
Goldstein, H., & Healy, M. J. R. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 581, 175–177.
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. doi:10.1007/BF02289823
Huynh, H., & Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and splitplot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69–82.
Huynh, L., & Feldt, S. (1970). Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact Fdistributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1582–1589.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin (Ed.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 278–292). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Essence of statistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in withinsubject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476–490. doi:10.3758/BF03210951
Mauchly, J. W. (1940). Significance test for sphericity of a normal nvariate distribution. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 204–209.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2000). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.
Morrison, G. R., & Weaver, B. (1995). Exactly how many p values is a picture worth? A commentary on Loftus’s plotpluserrorbar approach. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 52–56. doi:10.3758/BF03203620
Rouanet, H., & Lepine, D. (1970). Comparison between treatments in a repeatedmeasurement design—ANOVA and multivariate methods. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23, 147–163.
Tryon, W. W. (2001). Evaluating statistical difference, equivalence, and indeterminacy using inferential confidence intervals: An integrated alternative method of conducting null hypothesis statistical tests. Psychological Methods, 6, 371–386. doi:10.1037/1082989X.6.4.371
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3 (rdth ed.). New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Acknowledgments
Supported by Grants DFGFR 2100/2,3,41 to V.H.F. and NIMHMH41637 to G.R.L. Calculations were performed in R (available at www.Rproject.org).
Open Access
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
A1. Relationship between SEM ^{pairedDiff} and SEM ^{L&M}
We show that the SEM ^{L&M} is equal to the pooled and scaled SEM ^{pairedDiff} in the following way:
This notation is similar to that of Winer et al. (1991): The horizontal line and the two dots indicate that all corresponding SEM ^{pairedDiff}s are pooled. For example, in Fig. 1g, the SEM ^{pairedDiff} values are 0.3333, 0.2906, and 0.4163, such that
For the proof, consider a factor with J = 3 levels first. For a singlefactor repeated measures ANOVA, \( MSE \,=\, \overline {va{r_{.}}}  \overline {co{v_{{..}}}} \) (Winer et al., 1991, p. 264). Because \( SE{M^{{L\&M}}} = \sqrt {{\frac{{MSE}}{n}}} \), we obtain
The SEM for the difference between levels k and l is \( SEM_{{kl}}^{{pairedDiff}} = \sqrt {{\frac{{va{r_k}  2co{v_{{kl}}} + va{r_l}}}{n}.}} \) Multiplying by \( {1}/\sqrt {{2}} \) and pooling gives
Generalization to a factor with more than three levels: There are J(J – 1)/2 pairwise differences, J(J – 1)/2 covariances, and J variances. This gives
A2. Mixed designs
We treat all within and betweensubjects factors of a mixed design as single factors, such that we reduce the problem to one between and one withinsubjects factor. In such a twofactor mixed design, there is for each level of the betweensubjects factor a different variance–covariance matrix for the withinsubjects factor, which all have to be homogeneous and circular (Winer et al., 1991, p. 506). If group sizes are equal, this can be assessed in three steps: (a) Estimate for each level of the withinsubjects factor, whether the corresponding SEM ^{betw} values are equal across all levels of the betweensubjects factor. If this is the case, the entries on the diagonal of the variance–covariance matrices (i.e., the variances) are equal. (b) Estimate for each pair of withinsubjects levels whether the corresponding SEM ^{pairedDiff} values are equal across all levels of the betweensubjects factor. This ensures that all offdiagonal elements of the variance–covariance matrices (i.e., the covariances) are equal, because we already know that the variances are equal and, due to the relationship
the SEM _{ kl } ^{pairedDiff}s can only be equal if the covariances are equal. (c) Estimate for each level of the betweensubjects factor whether the SEM ^{pairedDiff}s corresponding to all pairs of withinsubjects levels are equal. This ensures the circularity of the variance–covariance matrices.
In short, we need to assess whether all SEM ^{betw} values at each level of the withinsubjects factor are similar, and whether all SEM ^{pairedDiff}s are similar. With unequal group sizes, we cannot use SEM, because a different n would enter the calculation. Therefore, we need to use standard deviations instead.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Franz, V.H., Loftus, G.R. Standard errors and confidence intervals in withinsubjects designs: Generalizing Loftus and Masson (1994) and avoiding the biases of alternative accounts. Psychon Bull Rev 19, 395–404 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3758/s1342301202301
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s1342301202301
Keywords
 Statistics
 Statistical inference
 Confidence intervals
 Repeated measures