IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssb/v64y2002i1p63-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Familywise robustness criteria for multiple‐comparison procedures

Author

Listed:
  • Burt Holland
  • Siu Hung Cheung

Abstract

A criticism of multiple‐comparison procedures is that the family of inferences over which an error rate is controlled is often arbitrarily selected, yet the conclusion may depend heavily on the choice of the family. Such ambiguity is most likely in large exploratory studies requiring numerous simultaneous inferences. In ambiguous situations it is desirable that results of multiple‐comparison procedures depend little on the chosen family. To assess this, we propose several familywise robustness criteria to evaluate such procedures, and we find some of their properties theoretically and by simulation. Procedures that control the false discovery rate seem to be familywise robust.

Suggested Citation

  • Burt Holland & Siu Hung Cheung, 2002. "Familywise robustness criteria for multiple‐comparison procedures," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(1), pages 63-77, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssb:v:64:y:2002:i:1:p:63-77
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9868.00325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00325
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9868.00325?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssb:v:64:y:2002:i:1:p:63-77. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.