LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous (more recent) messageNext (less recent) messagePrevious (more recent) in topicNext (less recent) in topicPrevious (more recent) by same authorNext (less recent) by same authorPrevious page (June 2002, week 3)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:42:53 +0200
Reply-To:   Annette <anne5432@UNI.DE>
Sender:   "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:   Annette <anne5432@UNI.DE>
Subject:   more stats related: controlling for type i error in table analysis
Comments:   To: SASL <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi, What do you think: Is controlling for type I error in table analysis necessary? I am just interested in the theoretical view of the problem. There's no study, experiment, or publication involved. Generally asked: Is there a tradition at all for doing multiple/pairwise tests in a contingency table, or for controlling the type I error? Most of the time, people state whether there is an effect overall or not, then eyeball the frequencies in the table and comment on where the biggest differences are. To be more specific, I'll sketch two scenarios: scenario1: Suppose you have a 3 (A,B,C) x 3 (X,Y,Z) table. Should there be a control for type I error (because of the multiple comparsons in each row or column)? scenario2: Suppose you have a 3 3level variables (A,B,C), (X,Y,Z), and (I, II, III). First one investigates table (A,B,C) x (X,Y,Z), then (A,B,C) x (I, II, III), and finally (X,Y,Z) x (I, II, III). Should there be a control for type I error (because of the multiple comparsons between each table, too)? I apologise for possible cross-postings with STAT-L. Thank you very much in advance, Annette


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page