Timeline for Post hoc test for Friedman test
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 16, 2018 at 14:24 | vote | accept | Sharah | ||
| Jul 18, 2018 at 16:21 | comment | added | Sal Mangiafico | In general you are better off using a test that uses all the data, like that proposed by Conover, than to use pairwise tests that ignore most of the data for each test. For a great example of the problem with pairwise comparisons with rank based data, look up Schwenk dice. In any case, the Friedman test is a generalization of the sign test, not of the Wilcoxon signed rank test. | |
| Jul 18, 2018 at 16:16 | comment | added | Sal Mangiafico | Conover, 1999, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 3rd, section 5.8 has a test for multiple comparisons after Friedman test. I imagine this is the same as is used in the posthoc.friedman.conover.test in the PMCMR package in R, but I didn't try to compare. It is better to use this kind of test than to use pairwise sign tests. | |
| Jul 11, 2018 at 6:53 | history | edited | Łukasz Deryło | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 407 characters in body |
| Jul 10, 2018 at 19:37 | history | answered | Łukasz Deryło | CC BY-SA 4.0 |