Literature DB >> 18318411

Comparing dependent correlations.

Rand R Wilcox1, Tian Tian.   

Abstract

In a recent article in The Journal of General Psychology, J. B. Hittner, K. May, and N. C. Silver (2003) described their investigation of several methods for comparing dependent correlations and found that all can be unsatisfactory, in terms of Type I errors, even with a sample size of 300. More precisely, when researchers test at the .05 level, the actual Type I error probability can exceed .10. The authors of this article extended J. B. Hittner et al.'s research by considering a variety of alternative methods. They found 3 that avoid inflating the Type I error rate above the nominal level. However, a Monte Carlo simulation demonstrated that when the underlying distribution of scores violated the assumption of normality, 2 of these methods had relatively low power and had actual Type I error rates well below the nominal level. The authors report comparisons with E. J. Williams' (1959) method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18318411     DOI: 10.3200/GENP.135.1.105-112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Psychol        ISSN: 0022-1309


  8 in total

1.  The generalized polymorphous concept account of graded structure in abstract categories.

Authors:  Steven Verheyen; Loes Stukken; Simon De Deyne; Matthew J Dry; Gert Storms
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-08

2.  Socioeconomic disadvantage, brain morphometry, and attentional bias to threat in middle childhood.

Authors:  Alexander J Dufford; Hannah Bianco; Pilyoung Kim
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.282

3.  Ten common statistical mistakes to watch out for when writing or reviewing a manuscript.

Authors:  Tamar R Makin; Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 8.140

4.  Establishing norms for error-related brain activity during the arrow Flanker task among young adults.

Authors:  Michael J Imburgio; Iulia Banica; Kaylin E Hill; Anna Weinberg; Dan Foti; Annmarie MacNamara
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 6.556

5.  Extrinsic Convergent Validity Evidence to Prevent Jingle and Jangle Fallacies.

Authors:  Oscar Gonzalez; David P MacKinnon; Felix B Muniz
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  Focal neural perturbations reshape low-dimensional trajectories of brain activity supporting cognitive performance.

Authors:  Kartik K Iyer; Kai Hwang; Luke J Hearne; Eli Muller; Mark D'Esposito; James M Shine; Luca Cocchi
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-01-10       Impact factor: 14.919

7.  Assessing urinary flow rate, creatinine, osmolality and other hydration adjustment methods for urinary biomonitoring using NHANES arsenic, iodine, lead and cadmium data.

Authors:  Daniel R S Middleton; Michael J Watts; R Murray Lark; Chris J Milne; David A Polya
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2016-06-10       Impact factor: 5.984

8.  Momentary subjective well-being depends on learning and not reward.

Authors:  Bastien Blain; Robb B Rutledge
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-11-17       Impact factor: 8.140

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.