Journal cover Journal topic
Archives Animal Breeding Archiv Tierzucht
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 0.991
IF0.991
IF 5-year value: 1.217
IF 5-year
1.217
CiteScore value: 2.0
CiteScore
2.0
SNIP value: 1.055
SNIP1.055
IPP value: 1.27
IPP1.27
SJR value: 0.425
SJR0.425
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 28
Scimago H
index
28
h5-index value: 13
h5-index13
Supported by
Logo Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology Logo Leibniz Association
Volume 55, issue 5
Arch. Anim. Breed., 55, 506–518, 2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-55-506-2012
© Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Arch. Anim. Breed., 55, 506–518, 2012
https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-55-506-2012
© Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  10 Oct 2012

10 Oct 2012

Type I error rates and test power for some variance components estimation methods: one-way random effect model

M. Mendeş M. Mendeş
  • Biometry and Genetics Department, Animal Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey

Abstract. This study was conducted to compare Type I error and test power of ANOVA, REML and ML methods by Monte Carlo simulation technique under different experimental conditions. Simulation results indicated that the variance ratios, sample size and number of groups were important factors in determining appropriate methods which were used to estimate variance components. The ML method was found slightly superior when compared to ANOVA and REML methods. On the other hand, ANOVA and REML methods generated similar results in general. As a results, regardless of distribution shapes and number of groups and if n<15; ML, REML methods might be preferred to the ANOVA. However, when either number of groups or sample size was increased (n≥15) ANOVA method may also be used along with ML and REML.

Download
Citation