Skip to main content Accessibility help

Data Analysis in Agricultural Experimentation. III. Multiple Comparisons

  • S. C. Pearce (a1)


Multiple comparison methods are described. It is noted that they have always been controversial, partly because they emphasize testing at the expense of estimation, partly because they pay no regard to the purpose of the investigation, partly because there are so many competing forms and, not least, because they can lead to illogical conclusions. There are many identified instances where they have been found misleading.

An alternative approach is to designate ‘contrasts of interest’ from the start and to concentrate estimation and testing upon them. In many experiments the approach is powerful and definite in use, but sometimes there is no reason to designate one contrast rather than another, for example, in the assessment of new strains or new chemicals. In such circumstances some have found multiple comparisons useful, especially when the problem is to ‘pick the winner’. Bayesian methods and cluster analysis are considered briefly as other alternatives.

The current over-use of multiple comparisons is deplored. It is thought to arise in part from bad teaching and in part from the general reluctance of non-statisticians to venture into the unknown territory of specifying contrasts. A bad situation is made worse by the availability of software that carries out multiple comparisons as a matter of course.



Hide All
Baker, R. J. (1980). Multiple comparison tests. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60:325327.
Bryan-Jones, J. & Finney, D.J. (1983). On an error in “Instructions to Authors”. HortScience 18:279282.
Caliński, T. & Corsten, L. C. A. (1985). Clustering means in ANOVA by simultaneous testing. Biometrics 41:3948.
Carmer, S. G. & Walker, W. M. (1982). Baby Bear's dilemma: a statistical tale. Agronomy Journal 74:122124.
Chew, V. (1976). Comparing treatment means: A compendium. HortScience 11:348357.
Chew, V. (1980). Testing differences among means: correct interpretation and some alternatives. HortScience. 15:467470.
Cox, D. R. (1965). A remark on multiple comparison methods. Technometrics 7:223224.
Dawkins, H. C. (1981). The misuse of t-tests, LSD and multiple-range tests. British Ecological Society Bulletin 12:112115.
Dawkins, H. C. (1983). Multiple comparisons misused: Why so frequently in response curve studies? Biometrics 39:789790.
Dixon, D. O. & Duncan, D. B. (1975). Minimum Bayes risk t-intervals for multiple comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70:822831.
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F-tests. Biometrics 11:111.
Duncan, D. B. (1965). A Bayesian approach to multiple comparisons. Technometrics 7:171222.
Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparisons between means. Journal of the American Statistical Association 56:5264.
Finney, D. J. (1988). Was this in your statistics textbook? III. Design and analysis. Experimental Agriculture 24:421432.
Gill, J. L. (1973). Current status of multiple comparisons of means in designed experiments. Journal of Dairy Science 56:973977.
Jolliffe, I. T., Allen, O. B. & Christie, B. R. (1989). Comparison of variety means using cluster analysis and dendrograms. Experimental Agriculture 25:259269.
Jones, D. (1984). Use, misuse and role of multiple-comparison procedures in ecological and agricultural entomology. Environmental Entomology 13:635649.
Keuls, M. (1952). The use of the “Studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance. Euphytica 1:112122.
Little, T. M. (1978). If Galileo published in HortScience. HortScience 13:504506.
Little, T. M., (1981). Interpretation and presentation of results. HortScience 13:637640.
Little, T. M. & Hills, F. J. (1976). Agricultural Experimentation (Design and Analysis). New York: John Wiley.
Mead, R. & Pike, D. J. (1975). A review of response surface methodology from a biometric viewpoint. Biometrics 31:803851.
Mize, C. W. & Schultz, R. C. (1985). Comparing treatment means correctly and appropriately. Canadian journal of Forestry Research 15: 11421146.
Morse, P. M. & Thompson, B. K. (1981). Presentation of experimental results. Canadian journal of Plant Science 61:799802
Nelder, J. A. (1971). Contribution to the discussion of O'Neill and Wetherill (1971). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B36:244246.
Newman, D. (1939). The distribution of range in samples from a normal population expressed in terms of an independent estimate of standard deviation. Biometrika 31:2030.
O'brien, P. C. (1983). The appropriateness of analysis of variance and multiple comparison procedures. Biometrics 39:787788.
O'neill, R. & Wetherill, G. B. (1971). The present state of multiple comparison methods. journal of The Royal Statistical Society B33:218241.
Pearce, S. C. (1965). Biological Statistics: An Introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pearce, S. C. (1992 a). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. I. Contrasts of interest. Experimental Agriculture 28:245253.
Pearce, S. C. (1992 b). Data analysis in agricultural experimentation. II. Some standard contrasts. Experimental Agriculture 28:375383.
Pearce, S. C., Clarke, G. M., Dyke, G. V. & Kempson, R. E. (1988). A Manual of Crop Experimentation (Chapter 5). London: Charles Griffin; New York: Oxford University Press.
Perry, J. N. (1986). Multiple comparison procedures: A dissenting view. journal of Economic Entomology 79:11491155.
Petersen, R. G. (1977). Use and misuse of multiple comparison procedures. Agronomy journal 69:205208.
Plackett, R. L. (1971). Contribution to the discussion of O'Neill and Wetherill (1971). journal of The Royal Statistical Society B33:242244.
Preece, D. A. (1982). The design and analysis of experiments: What has gone wrong? Utilitas Mathemalica 21A:210244.
Tharp, W. H., Wadleigh, C. H. & Barker, H. D. (1941). Some problems in handling and interpreting plant disease data in complex factorial designs. Phytopathology 31:2648.
Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing individual treatment means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics 5:99114.
Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical Science 6:100116.
Warren, W. G. (1986). On the presentation of statistical analysis: reason or ritual. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 16:11851191.

Data Analysis in Agricultural Experimentation. III. Multiple Comparisons

  • S. C. Pearce (a1)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed