A comparison of recent approaches to the analysis of repeated measurements
H. J. Keselman,James Algina,Rhonda K. Kowalchuk,Russell D. Wolfinger
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000711099158964
1999-05-01
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
Abstract:Looney & Stanley's (1989) recommendations regarding analysis strategies for repeated measures designs containing between‐subjects grouping variables and within‐subjects repeated measures variables were re‐examined and compared to recent analysis strategies. That is, corrected degrees of freedom univariate tests, multivariate tests, mixed model tests, and tests due to Keselman, Carriere & Lix (1993) and to Algina (1994), Huynh (1978) and Lecoutre (1991) were compared for rates of Type I error in unbalanced non‐spherical repeated measures designs having varied covariance structures and no missing data on the within‐subjects variable. Heterogeneous within‐subjects and heterogeneous within‐ and between‐subjects structures were investigated along with multivariate non‐normality. Results indicated that the tests due to Keselman et al. and Algina, Huynh and Lecoutre provided effective Type I error control whereas the default mixed model approach computed with PROC MIXED (SAS Institute, 1995) generally did not. Based on power differences, we recommend that applied researchers adopt the Welch‐James type test described by Keselman et al.
psychology, experimental, mathematical,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,statistics & probability