转自博客 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4d25466d0101p47z.html
Greenhouse-Geisser 一般在ANOVA的统计分析常用,在结果报告中我很困惑其df的报告。今天特意把这个问题弄个明白:
自由度是否报告校正后的,让我很困恼,有网友说:即便校正也不需要报告校正后自由度,只报告原来非校正的。或者看看文献里如何报告的。有位发表过脑电文章的在国内科研单位工作的网友说:是必须报告校正后的,也一般报告四舍五入的整数值即可。
如下是源自:https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/sphericity-statistical-guide-2.php
This is to counteract the fact that when the assumption of sphericity is violated, there is an increase in Type I errors due to the critical values in the F-table being too small. These corrections attempt to correct this bias.---校正的目的
epsilon (referred to as )具体是指:如下的红线框旁边的(p大于0.05,所以这个是没有违反球形检验):
当ε = 1时,说明这个值就是满足球形检验;但是当这个值越是小于1时,则越不满足违反了球形检验。
Greenhouse-Geisser Correction
Greenhouse-Geisser Correction为了校正F-分布的自由度进行估计epsilon;比如在违反了球形检验,就可以使用该检验。自由度也要相应的变化:The Greenhouse-Geisser procedure estimates epsilon (referred to as ) in order to correct the degrees of freedom of the F-distribution as has been mentioned previously, and shown below:
Using our prior example, and if sphericity had been violated, we would have:
So our F-test result is corrected from F (2,10) = 12.534, p = .002 to F (1.277,6.384) = 12.534, p= .009 (degrees of freedom are slightly different due to rounding). The correction has elicited a more accurate significance value. It has increased the p-value to compensate for the fact that the test is too liberal when sphericity is violated.注意这里的df有相应的变化。
Huynd-Feldt Correction
违反了球形检验,除了用上述的Greenhouse-Geisser,还可以使用Huynd-Feldt Correction
As with the Greenhouse-Geisser correction, the Huynd-Feldt correction estimates epsilon (represented as ) in order to correct the degrees of freedom of the F-distribution as shown below:
Using our prior example, and if sphericity had been violated, we would have:
So our F test result is corrected from F (2,10) = 12.534, p = .002 to F (1.520,7.602) = 12.534, p= .005 (degrees of freedom are slightly different due to rounding). As with the Greenhouse-Geisser correction, this correction has elicited a more accurate significance value; it has increased the p-value to compensate for the fact that the test is too liberal when sphericity is violated.
The Greenhouse-Geisser correction tends to underestimate epsilon (ε) when epsilon (ε) is close to 1 (i.e., it is a conservative correction), whilst the Huynd-Feldt correction tends to overestimate epsilon (ε) (i.e., it is a more liberal correction). Generally, the recommendation is to use the Greenhouse-Geisser correction, especially if estimated epsilon (ε) is less than 0.75. However, some statisticians recommend using the Huynd-Feldt correction if estimated epsilon (ε) is greater than 0.75. In practice, both corrections produce very similar corrections, so if estimated epsilon (ε) is greater than 0.75, you can equally justify using either.(相对来说:Greenhouse-Geisser更保守,Huynd-Feldt correction更自由。一般建议用Greenhouse-Geisser。但是,当estimated epsilon (ε)大于0.75时,就需使用Huynd-Feldt correction。在具体操作中,两种校正是相似的,因此当estimated epsilon (ε)大于0.75时,两种都可以用。)
另外,一篇文献里这么提及:
http://www.uccs.edu/Documents/humanneurophysiologylab/07 kisley et al 2005 with erratum.pdf
All significance tests were two-tailed at the 0.05 level. To protect against Type I errors, the degrees of freedom for all repeated measures ANOVAs were adjusted by the method of Greenhouse and Geisser[53]. All waveform amplitudes,whether from positive- or negative-going waves, arereported here as absolute value.
All statistically significant effects were corrected using the Greenhouse–Geisser method (Greenhouse and Geisser, 1959 ){S.W. Greenhouse, S. Geisser--On methods in the analysis of profile data Psychometrika, 24 (1959), pp. 95–112}----一般ERP脑电分析部分,无论球形检验是否显著,都会考虑用greenhouse-geisser校正。
========================================================================
如何报告结果,转自网易博客的一篇文章:
http://bcaoyuan.blog.163.com/blog/static/210343052201342913053893/ 转篇文章:
http://facelab.org/debruine/Teaching/Meth_A/files/Reporting_Statistics.pdf
===============================================================================================
http://mcgraw-hill.co.uk/openup/harris/b5.html
Size according to Cohen (1988) |
Eta squared (% variance explained by your IV) |
Cohen's d |
Small |
.01 (1%) |
.2 |
Medium |
.06 (6%) |
.5 |
Large |
.14 (14%) |
.8 |