↓ Skip to main content

A cautionary note on the use of the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A cautionary note on the use of the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in classification designs with and without within-subject factors
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00474
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce A. Schneider, Meital Avivi-Reich, Mindaugas Mozuraitis

Abstract

A number of statistical textbooks recommend using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to control for the effects of extraneous factors that might influence the dependent measure of interest. However, it is not generally recognized that serious problems of interpretation can arise when the design contains comparisons of participants sampled from different populations (classification designs). Designs that include a comparison of younger and older adults, or a comparison of musicians and non-musicians are examples of classification designs. In such cases, estimates of differences among groups can be contaminated by differences in the covariate population means across groups. A second problem of interpretation will arise if the experimenter fails to center the covariate measures (subtracting the mean covariate score from each covariate score) whenever the design contains within-subject factors. Unless the covariate measures on the participants are centered, estimates of within-subject factors are distorted, and significant increases in Type I error rates, and/or losses in power can occur when evaluating the effects of within-subject factors. This paper: (1) alerts potential users of ANCOVA of the need to center the covariate measures when the design contains within-subject factors, and (2) indicates how they can avoid biases when one cannot assume that the expected value of the covariate measure is the same for all of the groups in a classification design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 207 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 24%
Researcher 27 13%
Student > Master 25 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 38 18%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 75 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 59 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2021.
All research outputs
#13,038,951
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,040
of 30,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,289
of 265,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#256
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.