查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 多重比較法在植物保護研究上之使用=Analysis Methods for Multiple Comparisons in Plant Protection Research |
---|---|
作 者 | 蔣國司; | 書刊名 | 植物保護學會會刊 |
卷 期 | 48:4 民95.12 |
頁 次 | 頁259-268 |
分類號 | 433.7 |
關鍵詞 | 多重比較法; 型一誤差; 型二誤差; Multiple comparisons; Type Ⅰ error; Type Ⅱ error; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 在植物保護研究上,多重比較法(Multiple comparison methods)常被用來比較含三個處理方法以上的平均值、中位數或百分率,美國植物病理協會出版之Plant Disease期刊的資深編輯修稿來函中已指出,此期刊已不再接受多重比較法中之鄧肯氏多變域測驗(Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test, DMRT)的使用,然而此法在台灣的研究中卻經常被使用,以國內所發行的植物保護學會會刊與植物病理學會刊在1995、2000及2005年所刊登之文章為例,前者用到多重比較法的文章依序為38%、39% 與27%,而後者依序則為24%、38% 與38%,而使用多重比較法中之DMRT在前者的論文依序為73%、67% 與20%,故使用DMRT有漸減之趨勢;後者依序為100%、89% 與82%,使用DMRT之文章仍不少。同時也調查了美國PLANT DISEASE期刊在上述三個年度之研究報告,結果發現使用多重比較法之頻度與國內大致相當,約有三成,但使用DMRT並不高,最常被使用的為Least Significant Difference (LSD),值得一提的是,在這調查中發現不少文章使用Waller-Duncan’s Bayesian k-ratio t test,反觀國內植物保護領域期刊在上述這三個年度中,未曾有文章運用此法,故也將在本文中加以介紹。因此本文首先將說明多重比較法使用的時機與常被誤用的情形,接著討論這些多重比較法的性質,最後陳述說明為何DMRT不適用;除此之外,本文也將以一組植物保護應用上的例子來說明用不同的方法分析同一組資料的結果,最後再對於多重比較法之選擇提出一些建議。 |
英文摘要 | Multiple comparisons, the comparison of three or more treatments, are often used to summarize data in plant protection research. According to the letter from one of the senior editors of PLANT DISEASE published by the American Phytopathological Society, they no longer accept the use of Duncan’s new Multiple Range Test (DMRT) for multiple comparisons. However, DMRT applied rather frequently in Taiwan. For example, about 38%, 39% and 27 % of the authors in Plant Protection Bulletin used multiple comparisons to draw the conclusions in 1995, 2000 and 2005 respectively. In Plant Pathology Bulletin, the proportions are 24%, 38% and 38% in 1995, 2000 and 2005 respectively. Furthermore, the rates of DMRT utilized are 73%, 67% and 20 % for Plant Protection Bulletin and 100%, 89% and 82% for Plant Pathology Bulletin when multiple comparisons were employed. In the meantime, I also investigated the situations of multiple comparisons employed in PLANT DISEASE publish by the American Phytopathological Society. The results are that the proportion of multiple comparisons utilized is similar with that of Taiwan’s plant protection journals. In addition, Least Significant Difference (LSD) tops the multiple comparison methods list (40%, 56%, and 65% in 1995, 2000, and 2005). Likewise, Waller-Duncan’s Bayesian k-ratio t test is almost in the second place but it was never used in Taiwan’s plant protection journals so it will be thoroughly introduced. Therefore, the article will first present when is appropriate to use multiple comparisons, and then discuss the properties of the different tests of multiple comparisons, and at last explain why DMRT is regarded as an unsuitable test. Moreover, I will demonstrate the different results obtained by using these multiple comparison tests to analyze the same dataset. Finally, appropriate tests were recommended for different experiments. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。