Differences Among Groups

  • Eunsook T. Koh
  • Willis L. Owen


Statistical techniques are used for describing and finding relationships among variables, as we discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. They are also used to detect differences among groups. The latter are most frequently used for data analysis in experimental and quasi-experimental research. They enable us to evaluate the effects of an independent [cause or treatment or categorical variables (gender, age, race, etc.)] variable on a dependent variable (effect, outcome).


Dietary Fiber Wheat Bran Factorial ANOV True Variance Beef Tallow 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Altman, D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapmen and Hall, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. Boneau CA. The effects of violations of assumptions undelying the t-test. Psychol Bull 1960; 57:49–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Duncan D.B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1955; 11:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fetters, N.L. The effects of a high and low intensity weight training program on bone mineral density in early postmenopausal women. Thesis, Master of Science, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Goldfried M.A. One-tailed tests and unexpected results. Psychol Rev 1959; 66: 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green B.F. Tukey J.W. Complex analysis of variance: general problems. Psychometrika 1960; 25:127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Keuls M. The use of the “studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1952; 1:112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kirk, R.E. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: Brooks and Cole, 1982.Google Scholar
  9. Koh E.T. Effects of vitamin C on blood parameters of hypertensive subjects. Oklahoma State Med Assoc J 1984; 77:177–12Google Scholar
  10. Lord E.M. Statistical adjustments when comparing preexisting groups. Psychological Bull 1969; 72:336–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Newman D. The distribution of range in samples from a normal population, expressed in terms of an independent estimate of Biometrika 1989; 31:20–30Google Scholar
  12. Sanders, D.H. Statistics; a First Course. (5th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
  13. Scheffe, H. The Analysis of Variance. New York: John Wiley, 1959.Google Scholar
  14. “Student” The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 1908; 6: 1–25Google Scholar
  15. Swinscow, T.D.V. Statistics at Square One. (9th ed.) British Medical Journal, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Thomas J.R. A note concerning analysis of error scores from motor-memory research. J Motor Behav 1977; 9:251–253Google Scholar
  17. Thomas, J.R., Nelson, J.K. Research Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. Tolson H. An adjustment to statistical significance: ω2. Res Quart Exercise Sport 1980; 51: 580–584Google Scholar
  19. Toothaker, L.E. Multiple Comparisons for Researchers. Newbury Park, CA: Saga, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eunsook T. Koh
    • 1
  • Willis L. Owen
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Oklahoma Health Sciences CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations