
AbstractTwo common goals when choosing a method for performing all pairwise comparisons of J independent groups are controlling experiment wise Type I error and maximizing power. Typically groups are compared in terms of their means, but it has been known for over 30 years that the power of these methods becomes highly unsatisfactory under slight departures from normality toward heavy‐tailed distributions. An approach to this problem, well‐known in the statistical literature, is to replace the sample mean with a measure of location having a standard error that is relatively unaffected by heavy tails and outliers. One possibility is to use the trimmed mean. This paper describes three such multiple comparison procedures and compares them to two methods for comparing means.
Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing
Paired and multiple comparisons; multiple testing
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
