Comparisons of methods for multiple hypothesis testing in neuropsychological research.
Hypothesis testing with multiple outcomes requires adjustments to control Type I error inflation, which reduces power to detect significant differences. Maintaining the prechosen Type I error level is challenging when outcomes are correlated. This problem concerns many research areas, including neuropsychological research in which multiple, interrelated assessment measures are common. Standard p value adjustment methods include Bonferroni-, Sidak-, and resampling-class methods. In this report, the authors aimed to develop a multiple hypothesis testing strategy to maximize power while controlling Type I error. The authors conducted a sensitivity analysis, using a neuropsychological dataset, to offer a relative comparison of the methods and a simulation study to compare the robustness of the methods with respect to varying patterns and magnitudes of correlation between outcomes. The results lead them to recommend the Hochberg and Hommel methods (step-up modifications of the Bonferroni method) for mildly correlated outcomes and the step-down minP method (a resampling-based method) for highly correlated outcomes. The authors note caveats regarding the implementation of these methods using available software.
Blakesley
Richard E
RE
Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, PA, USA. reb18@pitt.edu
Mazumdar
Sati
S
Dew
Mary Amanda
MA
Houck
Patricia R
PR
Tang
Gong
G
Reynolds
Charles F
CF
Butters
Meryl A
MA
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D003863:Depression / Q000503:physiopathology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012106:Research