Talk:Post hoc analysis

Misguided Article
This Wikipedia article is totally misguided. The statistical procedures for dealing with multiplicity within this article apply only to pre-specified tests, not to post hoc analysis specified after data have been gathered and analysis has begun. One can adjust for multiplicity only when one has a truly pre-specified tests. If tests are not totally pre-specified, then there is no way to argue how many tests were or might have been performed.

This article should be deleted. Some of the content of the article might be useful in an article for multiple testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacquotFresne (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed the misleading sections and POV. The article is quite cleaned up now. 164.67.77.247 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Link to German Version
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Post-hoc-Test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.153.146.198 (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Induction
I think some reference to the philosophy of science, especially the problem of induction, would be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.106.16 (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also... A simple explanation of when you would use what post hoc tests would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.185.235 (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction
Wow, whoever wrote that intro really must hate post-hoc tests! It's dripping with scathing bias. The "information" it contains is actually lost in the negativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.234.5.137 (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Added this comment at the end of the final paragraph:

(EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATEMENT IS WILDLY TENDENTIOUS. Sorry for the intrusion. notreallydavid).

It's very likely to be taken down. I wouldn't normally add graffiti to the text of an article, but I thought the warning was warranted. Regards to all. Notreallydavid (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Expert-subject
Added template, given poor state of this. See above. And if Newman–Keuls method isn't a post hoc method, why is so much space given to it? Melcombe (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Student–Newman–Keuls section has been removed. Tal Galili (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of hyphen
[https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=post+hoc+analysis%2Cpost-hoc+analysis%2Cpost+hoc+test%2Cpost-hoc+test%2Cpost+hoc+tests%2Cpost-hoc+tests%2Cpost+hoc+analyses%2Cpost-hoc+analyses&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1940&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cpost%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20Analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPOST%20HOC%20ANALYSIS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20-%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20-%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20hoc%20analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20Hoc%20Analysis%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20Test%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20-%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20-%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20hoc%20test%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20Tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPOST%20HOC%20TESTS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20-%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20-%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20hoc%20tests%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20Hoc%20Tests%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20Hoc%20Analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cpost%20-%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bpost%20-%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BPost%20-%20hoc%20analyses%3B%2Cc0 Google Ngram] suggests that the non-hyphenated version is more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk • contribs) 16:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

→The APA Publication Manual (in its most recent sixth edition) also recommends not hyphenating. "Do not hyphenate... Foreign phrases used as adjectives or adverbs... post hoc comparisons" (Table 4.1, page 98 in the version I have). The same goes for the American Physical Society's guidelines for its journals: 'Hyphens are not used in Latin or foreign phrases even if they modify a noun (e.g., "post hoc testing" or "in vivo experiment").' (Source: http://www.apsstylemanual.org/apsHouseStyle/punctuation/hyphens.htm) The Simon and Schuster Handbook for Writers, chapter 28, has it as follows: " Never use a hyphen when a compound modifier is a foreign phrase... post hoc fallacies".

What ambiguity is this hyphen supposed to remove? Given these authoritative sources, I propose changing the title of the article, and the usages within it, immediately. Human fella (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Changes now made. Human fella (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Additions to the article
I have now finished introducing major additions to the article (see the following diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-hoc_analysis&diff=630787378&oldid=630538357). These are based on the work done by students in the Tel-Aviv University course "multiple comparisons". You may see a relevant revision history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Talgalili/sandbox/Post-hoc_analysis&action=history

Tal Galili (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)