↓ Skip to main content

Violation of the Sphericity Assumption and Its Effect on Type-I Error Rates in Repeated Measures ANOVA and Multi-Level Linear Models (MLM)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Violation of the Sphericity Assumption and Its Effect on Type-I Error Rates in Repeated Measures ANOVA and Multi-Level Linear Models (MLM)
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01841
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicolas Haverkamp, André Beauducel

Abstract

We investigated the effects of violations of the sphericity assumption on Type I error rates for different methodical approaches of repeated measures analysis using a simulation approach. In contrast to previous simulation studies on this topic, up to nine measurement occasions were considered. Effects of the level of inter-correlations between measurement occasions on Type I error rates were considered for the first time. Two populations with non-violation of the sphericity assumption, one with uncorrelated measurement occasions and one with moderately correlated measurement occasions, were generated. One population with violation of the sphericity assumption combines uncorrelated with highly correlated measurement occasions. A second population with violation of the sphericity assumption combines moderately correlated and highly correlated measurement occasions. From these four populations without any between-group effect or within-subject effect 5,000 random samples were drawn. Finally, the mean Type I error rates for Multilevel linear models (MLM) with an unstructured covariance matrix (MLM-UN), MLM with compound-symmetry (MLM-CS) and for repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) models (without correction, with Greenhouse-Geisser-correction, and Huynh-Feldt-correction) were computed. To examine the effect of both the sample size and the number of measurement occasions, sample sizes of n = 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 were considered as well as measurement occasions of m = 3, 6, and 9. With respect to rANOVA, the results plead for a use of rANOVA with Huynh-Feldt-correction, especially when the sphericity assumption is violated, the sample size is rather small and the number of measurement occasions is large. For MLM-UN, the results illustrate a massive progressive bias for small sample sizes (n = 20) and m = 6 or more measurement occasions. This effect could not be found in previous simulation studies with a smaller number of measurement occasions. The proportionality of bias and number of measurement occasions should be considered when MLM-UN is used. The good news is that this proportionality can be compensated by means of large sample sizes. Accordingly, MLM-UN can be recommended even for small sample sizes for about three measurement occasions and for large sample sizes for about nine measurement occasions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 18%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Engineering 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 35 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 December 2022.
All research outputs
#7,011,200
of 25,011,008 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,027
of 33,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,056
of 332,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#262
of 610 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,011,008 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,783 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 332,623 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 610 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.