SPSS Statistics

 View Only
  • 1.  Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    Posted 23 days ago
    Hi Jon or another professional,
    With n = 12, I recently demonstrated a Friedman test, measuring subjects' flexibility scores (treated as ordinal data) across four time measures. The omnibus test was significant, and asymptotic p values are below and ON THE LEFT (before Bonferroni corrections) showing the six pairwise comparisons taken from the default pairwise comparison matrix of the results section; to the right are asymptotic p values when the pairs were compared by conducting six separate Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Can you explain the differences in the p values for the two approaches?

    pre-week3, p = .813           p = .317 (signed rank test)
    pre-week6, p = .114            p = .026 (signed rank test)
    pre-week8, p < .001            p = .002 (signed rank test)
    week3-week6, p = .179       p = .040 (signed rank test)
    week3-week8, p = < .001    p = .002 (signed rank test)
    week6-week8, p = .009        p = .003 (signed rank test)

    I might expect differences if the p values were compared to exact p values produced by using the T-plus distribution table but not with both results being asymptotic p values. Thanks in advance, 
    Cliff




  • 2.  RE: Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    IBM Champion
    Posted 22 days ago
    I am  going to leave this to others more familiar with this area, but you might find it helpful to look in the Algorithms manual for the mathematical details of each calculation.  You can find that manual via Help > Doc in PDF format.   Look under the procedure names.

    --





  • 3.  RE: Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    Posted 22 days ago
    Edited by Kirill Orlov 22 days ago

    1) Friedman test is not the extension of Wilcoxon test. https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/83907/3277

    2) Truly, I don't know whether the (Dunn-based pairwise) post hoc procedure after Friedman is correct in SPSS. There have been weighty doubts about it: https://stats.stackexchange.com/q/175441/3277. I hope very much that SPSS statisticians will come here to comment on this pt. 2.



    ------------------------------
    Kirill Orlov
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    IBM Champion
    Posted 22 days ago
    I don't know the resolution of that discussion, but the last post there is seven years old, so if there was a problem with the procedure, it is pretty likely that it was addressed.

    --





  • 5.  RE: Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    Posted 19 days ago

    No, Jon, nothing has changed. The results in v. 29 are still the same as in v. 22, and erroneous for me. Maybe someone of SPSS statisticians comes down here to clarify or resolve?



    ------------------------------
    Kirill Orlov
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Post Hoc Analyses for Friedman test

    Posted 21 days ago

    Regarding Kirill's first point, see also this comment by Thom Baguley:

    • https://seriousstats.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/friedman/


    ------------------------------
    Bruce Weaver
    ------------------------------