Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs

Bioequivalence experimental study designs play a pivotal role in testing the effectiveness of various treatments. Key among these are the repeated measures, cross-over, carry-over, and Latin square designs. In the repeated measures design, each subject receives all treatments, allowing for temporal comparisons. This type of design is useful in reducing variability but requires careful planning to avoid bias.The cross-over design, an economical method, involves sequential administration of...

Group Design

Group Design

The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to...

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple Comparison Tests

Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...

Sign Test for Matched Pairs

Sign Test for Matched Pairs

The sign test for matched pairs offers a robust method for comparing two paired samples, often for the effects of an intervention in one of them. This method is very useful in situations where the underlying distribution of the data is unknown. The test compares two related samples—often pre- and post-treatment measurements on the same subjects—to determine if there are significant differences in their median values.
To conduct the sign test, we first calculate the differences in value between...

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups

Survival analysis is a cornerstone of medical research, used to evaluate the time until an event of interest occurs, such as death, disease recurrence, or recovery. Unlike standard statistical methods, survival analysis is particularly adept at handling censored data—instances where the event has not occurred for some participants by the end of the study or remains unobserved. To address these unique challenges, specialized techniques like the Kaplan-Meier estimator, log-rank test, and Cox...

Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

Friedman Two-way Analysis of Variance by Ranks

Friedman's Two-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks is a nonparametric test designed to identify differences across multiple test attempts when traditional assumptions of normality and equal variances do not apply. Unlike conventional ANOVA, which requires normally distributed data with equal variances, Friedman's test is ideal for ordinal or non-normally distributed data, making it particularly useful for analyzing dependent samples, such as matched subjects over time or repeated measures from...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Executive and Social Functioning in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Comparison to Autism.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities·2025

Same author

Social and Linguistic Correlates of Vocabulary Size in Autism: Overlapping Vocalization and Phonological Memory.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2024

Same author

The Work Ahead for Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities·2023

Same author

Toward Equity in Research on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities·2023

Same author

A Bayesian statistics tutorial for clinical research: Prior distributions and meaningful results for small clinical samples.

Journal of clinical psychology·2023

Same author

Parental scaffolding in play: A comparison of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders and autism spectrum disorder.

Research in developmental disabilities·2023

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 15, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

Establishing equivalence: methodological progress in group-matching design and analysis.

Sara T Kover¹, Amy K Atwoo

¹University of Wisconsin-Madison, Waisman Center, Madison, WI 53705, USA. kover@wisc.edu

American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

|January 11, 2013

Summary

Researchers studying intellectual and developmental disabilities should use effect sizes and variance ratios for better group matching. This improves the design and analysis of group comparison studies in neurodevelopmental disorders.

More Related Videos

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 15, 2026

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

Published on: September 27, 2019

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups

Published on: May 13, 2022

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

Area of Science:

Methodological review focusing on research design and statistical analysis in developmental disabilities.

Background:

Challenges exist in designing and analyzing group comparison studies for intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD).
Existing matching methodologies in IDD research, particularly for neurodevelopmental disorders, have limitations.
Reliance on p-values for group equivalence is insufficient in behavioral research.

Purpose of the Study:

To highlight challenges in designing and analyzing group comparison studies in intellectual and developmental disabilities research.
To review matching methodologies used in behavioral research on neurodevelopmental disorders.
To recommend improved statistical approaches for group equivalence.

Main Methods:

Methodological review of group-matching designs in behavioral research.
Discussion of limitations of p-values for group equivalence.
Evaluation of alternative methods: equivalence tests, propensity scores, regression-based analyses.

Main Results:

P-values are inadequate for establishing group equivalence in IDD research.
Effect sizes (standardized mean differences) and variance ratios are superior descriptive indices for group matching.
Appropriate matching enhances the validity of group comparison studies.

Conclusions:

Adopting effect sizes and variance ratios is crucial for robust group matching in IDD research.
Improved methodological rigor will advance understanding of neurodevelopmental disorders.
This review provides practical recommendations for researchers in the field.