2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2009.00001.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems

Abstract: Summary1. While teaching statistics to ecologists, the lead authors of this paper have noticed common statistical problems. If a random sample of their work (including scientific papers) produced before doing these courses were selected, half would probably contain violations of the underlying assumptions of the statistical techniques employed. 2. Some violations have little impact on the results or ecological conclusions; yet others increase type I or type II errors, potentially resulting in wrong ecological … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

8
4,604
0
35

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6,553 publications
(4,647 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
8
4,604
0
35
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, N ( x , y ) indicates a normal distribution with mean x and variance y . Finally, model validation was performed by graphical analysis via various residual plots (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012; Zuur, 2012; Zuur, Ieno, & Elphick, 2010). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, N ( x , y ) indicates a normal distribution with mean x and variance y . Finally, model validation was performed by graphical analysis via various residual plots (Field, Miles, & Field, 2012; Zuur, 2012; Zuur, Ieno, & Elphick, 2010). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two general linear models (GLM) with Gaussian distributed error variances were constructed with either T e or T t (s) as the response variable, shoal size as a categorical explanatory variable, and wet mass, fork length, SMR, and MMR of focal fish as continuous explanatory variables; interaction terms shoal size:SMR and shoal size:MMR were also included. Time of first entry ( T e ), wet mass, fork length, SMR, and MMR were log‐transformed to conform to model assumptions of linearity and homoscedasticity (Zuur, Ieno, & Elphick, 2010). All time‐based metrics used were analysed as proportions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Collinearity of explanatory variables was assessed by means of the analysis of variance inflation factors (VIF) and, if necessary, variables showing VIF values greater than 3 were excluded from the analyses (Zuur, Ieno, & Elphick, 2010). For model selection, we fitted several models considering all potential combinations of the principal effects of the explanatory variables and included some interactions that were considered biologically relevant in the context of the hypotheses tested.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%