User Community
cancel
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
  • Don’t miss your chance to experience Discovery Summit Europe at our best available rate! Early bird registration through 31 Oct.
  • Image to Table JMP extension imports single or batch images as data tables. Useful to extract curves from pictures or convert image data to curve data to use in analyses like Functional Data Explorer. Download and install the extension.

Discussions

Solve problems, and share tips and tricks with other JMP users.
Choose Language Hide Translation Bar
nickki_s
nickki_s
Level I

LSMeans Tests between Student's t vs. Tukey HSD

Dec 6, 2018 03:42 PM (10056 views)

Has anyone seen this result where Student's t letters are the same while Tukey HSD letters are different. I usually see visa versa. Any thought?

 

 

Preview file
230 KB
0 Kudos
1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions
Mark_Bailey
Staff Mark_Bailey
Staff
Solution

Re: LSMeans Tests between Student's t vs. Tukey HSD

Dec 6, 2018 03:57 PM (10051 views)  |  Posted in reply to message from nickki_s 12-06-2018

I would not perform any post hoc tests until I validated the assumptions of the model and addressed all the issues with the estimation.

  • Did you notice the warnings in the report of the variance components?
  • Did you notice that your model is over-specified and the fixed and random effects are confounded?
  • Did you notice that one of the random effects is zeroed?
  • How do you justify treating gender as a random effect?

 

I don't think that this analysis is quite ready for any post hoc tests.

View solution in original post

1 REPLY 1
Mark_Bailey
Staff Mark_Bailey
Staff
Solution

Re: LSMeans Tests between Student's t vs. Tukey HSD

Dec 6, 2018 03:57 PM (10051 views)  |  Posted in reply to message from nickki_s 12-06-2018

I would not perform any post hoc tests until I validated the assumptions of the model and addressed all the issues with the estimation.

  • Did you notice the warnings in the report of the variance components?
  • Did you notice that your model is over-specified and the fixed and random effects are confounded?
  • Did you notice that one of the random effects is zeroed?
  • How do you justify treating gender as a random effect?

 

I don't think that this analysis is quite ready for any post hoc tests.

Recommended Articles