Abstract. Multiple comparison methods (MCMs) are used to investigate differences between pairs of population means or, more generally, between subsets of population means using sample data. Although several such methods are commonly available in statistical software packages, users may be poorly informed about the appropriate method(s) to use and/or the correct way to interpret the results. This paper classifies the MCMs and presents the important methods for each class. Both simulated and real data are used to compare methods, and emphasis is placed on correct application and interpretation. We include suggestions for choosing the best method. Mathematica programs developed by the authors are used to compare MCMs. By taking advantage of Mathematica's notebook structure, an interested student can use these programs to explore the subject more deeply. The programs and examples used in the article are available at

Two hundred male and female patients, selected at random from all patients admitted to an inpatient alcoholism treatment facility in 1973-1974, were surveyed 10 years following treatment. Response rate was 80%, and a validity check was done. Of the 158 unstable responses, 61% reported complete or stable remission of their alcoholism for at least 3 years prior to the survey and 84% reported stable psychosocial status. Successful outcome was possible regardless of severity of drinking history or psychosocial status. Seventy-six percent (76%) of those still alive at follow-up reported remission; at most, 23% of the deceased were reported in remission prior to death. Involvement in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) predicted abstinence, suggesting successful outcome for patients who undergo a treatment regimen, which bridges patients into AA involvement. Of those respondents who continued to sponsor other AA members throughout the follow-up period, 91% were in remission at the time of survey.

The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate enamel thickness in extant and extinct hominoids. The material used in this study spans the evolutionary history of this group, from 20 million years ago to the present. The objectives of this investigation are to test three hypotheses: (1) the Loading Hypothesis: loading areas of the crown have thicker enamel than non-loading areas; (2) the Phyletic Hypothesis: differences in enamel thickness provide a basis for determining evolutionary relationships; and (3) the Functional Hypothesis: differences among hominoids result from adaptations to differing dietary and ecological habitats, that is from folivory to frugivory to hard object feeding and from tropical to forest to savanna habitats. Thin sections were prepared and polished to approximately 100 microm in thickness. Each section was then enlarged and digitally captured to the computer. Image processing and analysis software, SigmaImage (was used to measure the sections. Subsequent statistical analysis was conducted with SigmaStat and SPSS statistical software programs. The data provides statistical support for all hypotheses. In particular, the data support the proposal that "thick" enamel is the ancestral condition for the great apes and human clade. Therefore, Pongo would have retained its enamel thickness from the common ancestor of the great apes and Gorilla and Pan would have secondarily reduced enamel thickness to "thin." The common ancestor of the hominids, the australopithecines, would have "thick" enamel. The "hyper-thick" enamel of the australopithecines would be a derived character for this clade due to increased crushing and grinding and adaptation to savanna habitat. Homo would have secondarily reduced enamel thickness to "thick." Evolutionary biology of enamel differs markedly in hominids from that found in other hominoids and primates. Increased enamel thickness involved both increases in absolute thickness of enamel and crown size in response to increase masticatory loading.

No abstract