7 visualizações

Enviado por pepoandino

- 1. 2013 Rose ASS Scopus
- Jurnal 2
- Two One-sided t Tests
- Chap1_new
- Feldman10_ppt_ch02
- unit 1- introduction to science
- JKTech Statistics Brochure
- shea lab presentation fall 2012
- Sampling and Intro Power
- Biological Technician
- 1_The Role of the Audit Committee_eng
- HIV and Discrimination
- DEVELOPMENT OF HIV/AIDS AND LIFE SKILLS EDUCATION BOOKLET FOR STUDENT TEACHERS AND STUDY ITS EFFECTIVENESS
- It.doc
- Educaton Paper I
- jennaomalley cap standard2
- Sidman- Equivalence relations and behavior.pdf
- complete unit
- OPTIMIZATION OF PRODUCTION PROCESS OF SOYA OIL.
- the effect of mozarts music on child development in a jordanian kindergarten

Você está na página 1de 13

4, 421 433

Pseudoreplication is a Pseudoproblem

Jeffrey C. Schank

University of California

Thomas J. Koehnle

Hiram College

Pseudoreplication is one of the most influential methodological issues in ecological and animal behavior research today. At its inception, the idea of pseudoreplication highlighted important concerns about the design and analysis of experiments in ecology. The doctrine purported to provide a unified view of experimental design and analysis, wherein precise criteria could be used to assess manuscripts and research proposals for acceptance or rejection. Few methodological doctrines have had as much impact as pseudoreplication, yet there has been very little critical analysis of it. In this paper, the authors extend the growing criticism of the concept of pseudoreplication. The authors argue that the core ideas behind pseudoreplication are based on a misunderstanding of statistical independence, the nature of control groups in science, and contexts of statistical inference. The authors also highlight how other areas of research have found and responded to similar issues in the design and analysis of experiments through the use of more advanced statistical methods. Ultimately, there are no universal criteria for accepting or rejecting experimental research; all research must be judged on its own merits. Keywords: pseudoreplication, experimental design, statistical analysis

In his seminal paper on the design of experiments in ecology, Hurlbert (1984) brought into mainstream usage the term pseudoreplication, first in ecology and subsequently animal behavior (Kroodsma, 1989, 1990; Kroodsma et al., 2001; Lombardi & Hurlbert, 1996). The methodological doctrine of pseudoreplication offers several heuristic guidelines for the design of experiments and analysis of experimental data. Experimental designs that violate these guidelines are labeled pseudoreplicated and no valid statistical inferences can be made about them. In the next sections, we will articulate the notion of pseudoreplication and argue that it is a flawed methodological doctrine. We will begin by explaining the basic doctrine of pseudoreplication as outlined by Hurlbert (1984). Next, we will illustrate how pseudoreplication confuses issues of spatiotemporal proximity with issues of statistical independence. We will then argue that the heuristics guidelines offered to avoid pseudoreplication are problematic. Much of what we discuss is based on Hurlberts (1984) original paper. His subsequent commentaries and book reviews (Hurlbert, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2004; Lombardi & Hurlbert, 1996) cover largely the same ground. Kroodsma (1989, 1990; Kroodsma et al., 2001) applied Hurlberts (1984) ideas to song-play-back studies, but no new ideas were added to the basic idea of pseudoreplication. The consensus report of McGregor et al. (1992) accepted the basic ideas set out by Hurlbert (1984) but also added nothing new to the basic doctrine. Our concerns about the methodological and statis-

tical controversies surrounding pseudoreplication are not novel (e.g.,Oksanen, 2001, 2004; Underwood, 1997; Wiley, 2003), but our particular approach to this problem, through the use of Monte Carlo simulation, will strengthen the mathematical and empirical foundations for these concerns.

What Is Pseudoreplication?

Hurlbert (1984) stated the problem in several different ways. We will begin by briefly discussing each of these statements of the meaning of pseudoreplication and then tie them together into a clear statement of what pseudoreplication is. The first statement of the problem is expressed narrowly in analysis of variance terms:

Pseudoreplication may be defined, in analysis of variance terminology, as the testing for treatment effects with an error term inappropriate to the hypothesis being considered (Hurlbert, 1984, p. 187).

This suggests that the problem of pseudoreplication is an error in calculating the F-ratio in an analysis of variance, but Hurlbert has a deeper issue in mind. A few pages later, Hurlbert (1984) states that the problem is in using an inappropriate statistical analysis for an experimental design used to test a hypothesis.

[The problem of pseudoreplication is]. . .a particular combination of experimental design (or sampling) and statistical analysis which is inappropriate for testing the hypothesis of interest (pp. 190).

Jeffrey C. Schank, Department of Psychology and Animal Behavior Graduate Group, University of California, Davis; Thomas J. Koehnle, Department of Biology, Hiram College. We thank Dick Coss for encouraging me to write this paper and for our discussions on this topic and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. NIH supported this work under Grant No. 5R01MH065555. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey C. Schank, Department of Psychology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, U. S. A. E-mail: jcschank@ucdavis.edu 421

This definition also makes sense of Hurlberts first statement of the problem of pseudoreplication in analysis of variance terminology. A statistical analysis inappropriate for the data will often have an incorrect calculation of the error term. There is, however, nothing new in this statement of the problem. If this is all Hurlbert (1984) intended, then we can offer no substantial disagreement. Hulbert (1984), however, emphasized a different and more interesting point throughout the remainder of

422

his paper. The problem of pseudoreplication is not merely the inappropriate application of statistical analyses, but rather that certain experimental designs are inherently invalid. Indeed, Hurlbert (1984) enumerated which kinds of experimental designs are problematic when used with inferential statistics:

If treatments are spatially or temporally segregated (B-1, 2, 3), if all replicates of a treatment are somehow interconnected (B-4), or if replicates are only samples from a single experimental unit (B-5), then replicates are not independent [see Table 1]. If one uses the data from such experiments to test for treatment effects, then one is committing pseudoreplication (pp. 198).

learned from that system could be said to be knowledge about lakes or watersheds in general because adequate replication is not possible. Temporal pseudoreplication also occurs when repeated measures are taken on an experimental unit over time.

This differs from simple pseudoreplication only in that the multiple samples from each experimental unit are not taken simultaneously but rather sequentially over each of several dates . . . Dates are then taken to represent replicated treatments and significance test are applied. Because successive samples from a single unit are so obviously going to be correlated with each other, the potential for spurious treatment effects is very high with such designs (Hurlbert, 1984, pp. 204 205).

This is the clearest statement of the problem of pseudoreplication in the literature. Pseudoreplication occurs when treatment or experimental conditions are spatiotemporally isolated, when conditions are somehow physically interconnected, or when multiple measurements are taken from a single unit. All of these lead to nonindependence in the data according to Hurlbert (1984). The claim appears to be that locations close in space or time are by their very nature statistically dependent. After introducing this basic concept of pseudoreplication, Hurlbert (1984) then distinguished three types of pseudoreplication: Simple, Temporal, and Sacrificial. Simple pseudoreplication is the core doctrine of pseudoreplication. Simple pseudoreplication occurs when experimental design B-5 (see Table 1) is used:

The most common type of controlled experiment in field ecology involves a single replicate per treatment. This is neither surprising nor bad. Replication is often impossible or undesirable when very large-scale systems (whole lakes, watersheds, rivers, etc.) are studied . . . . What is objectionable is when the tentative conclusions derived from unreplicated treatments are given an unmerited veneer of rigor by the erroneous application of inferential statistics (pp. 199 200).

For Hurlbert (1984), the experimental designs B1 to B4 are all special cases of simple pseudoreplication (see Table 1). That is, a researcher might study a particular lake or watershed, but nothing

If the point is that treating repeated measures, say from the same animals, as independent data points is an error, then we completely agree. If, however, the claim is that because repeated measures may be correlated in time, they cannot be used in statistical analysis, then we disagree. Repeated measures analyses are often valid, and techniques have been developed for adjusting p values as a function of correlations in the data. It is not clear from Hurlberts (1984) discussion, but if he does reject repeated measures analyses, then this view may stem from the view that physical conditions cannot be adequately controlled, either spatially or temporally. There are types of data that are not appropriate for repeated measures analyses. One example is the analysis of data for the relationship among cycles. A relatively small literature in the past looked for estrous or menstrual synchrony in groups of female mammals often using repeated measures analyses applied to multiple cycles within subjects over time (see Yang & Schank, 2006, for further discussion and references). Analyzing cyclic data with linear models is not merely a mistake, but also comes closest to the actual meaning of the term pseudoreplication as false replication in the analysis of data. This is because any oscillating system repeatedly goes through the same phases or states. If an oscillator has a stable rhythm, then to use as separate data points the timing

Table 1 A Schematic Representation of the Types of Experimental Design Layouts (After Hurlbert, 1984, Fig. 1), Which are Acceptably Interspersive (A-1 To A-3) and Unacceptably Interspersive (B-1 To B-5).

Type of Experimental Design A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Completely Randomized Randomized Block Systematic Simple Segregation Clumped Segregation Isolative Segregation

Chamber or Room Chamber or Room

B-4

Replicates

B-5

No Replication

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM

423

of when the oscillator goes through the same phase or state is simply to use the same data points repeatedly. Finally, sacrificial pseudoreplication occurs whenever the data below the level of analysis of experimental units are pooled to create a single, larger entity.

This results when an experimental design involves true replication of treatments but where the data for replicates are pooled prior to statistical analysis . . . or where the two or more samples or measurements taken from each experimental unit are treated as independent replicates. . . . Information on the variance among treatment replicates exists in the original data, but is confounded with the variance among samples (within replicates) or else is effectively thrown away when the samples from the two or more replicates are pooled (hence sacrificial) (Hurlbert, 1984, pp. 205).

It is thus surprising to note the continued persistence of the doctrine of pseudoreplication in ecology and behavioral research. The persistence of this methodological doctrine and its methodological guidelines likely stem from the intersection of poor training in statistical inference at the graduate and undergraduate levels (Cohen, 1994; Oakes, 1986), the necessarily messy and difficult conditions under which even the best ecological and behavioral research must be done (Oksanen, 2001, 2004; Underwood, 1997; Wiley, 2003; see below), and confusion about what exactly is being tested. So what specifically is wrong with the idea of pseudoreplication, and what is wrong with the heuristics offered as a means to avoid it?

A researcher may start out with one of the experimental designs A-1 to A-3, but by pooling the data ends up with design B-5, which then results in simple pseudoreplication. Later, we will argue that the decision whether or not to pool data, is an empirical and not an a priori decision. Hurlberts general concern with the possibility of contamination due to spatiotemporal proximity within levels of analysis is at the heart of his concern in the analysis of data for each type of pseudoreplication and it is valid concern. In behavioral and ecological research, however, some degree of spatiotemporal overlap is always necessary. The problem of pseudoreplication rests on the question of whether data gathered with any degree of spatiotemporal proximity is too intercorrelated and statistically interdependent to permit statistical inference. The now standard approach for dealing with these issues is to use appropriate experimental controls and statistical models for correlated and multilevel data. The difficulty in analyzing data gathered across multiple levels of analysis is not new. Indeed, changes in correlation coefficients as data are aggregated at different levels of analysis were first observed by Pearson (1896). This problem was independently rediscovered multiple times, most recently in sociology (e.g., Hammond, 1973; Robinson, 1950), education research (e.g., Cronbach, 1976; Lindquist, 1940), and ecology (e.g., Hurlbert, 1984). Historically, there have been three methods employed to deal with the levels of analysis problem in each field. The first, more naive method is to simply note its existence and then keep doing what was done before. A second, more traditional method is to push for more complex statistical models, as with the development of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) in education research (Raudenbush & Bryk, 1988), the call for wider use of mixed-model or nested ANOVA designs in animal behavior research (e.g., Kirk, 1982), and to reemphasize the control of physical conditions. The third, more reactionary method employed to deal with this problem involves specification of rigorous criteria for the wholesale acceptance or rejection of a multitude of seemingly benign experimental designs (e.g., Cronbach, 1976; Hurlbert, 1984). The initial reception of Hurlberts (1984) paper reflected genuine and widespread concern about the design and analysis of experiments. Ultimately, though, increased methodological sophistication, careful thought, and the development of new statistical models are solving these problems (e.g., Raudenbush & Bryk, 1988). For example, in the fields of sociology and education research, the units of analysis problem largely disappeared with the arrival of multilevel ANOVA and HLM analyses. Experimental units are the things that treatments or manipulations are applied to in experimental contexts. In a rat study testing the effects of an antipsychotic drug on behavior, the treatment or manipulation is the antipsychotic drug. In behavioral research, the experimental unit is typically an individual animal. For Hurlbert (1984), the individual organism holds no special status in experimental research. Experimental units are determined by spatiotemporal proximity, physical connectedness, and physical boundaries. For example, any study involving the fish in an aquarium must have the aquarium (no matter the size) as the experimental unit and not the fish in the aquarium. The reason is that by virtue of being in close spatial proximity bounded by the sides and bottom of the aquarium, they form a single entity (for purposes of experimental analysis) with correlated parts (i.e., the fish). The same can be said for an aviary or a room in a vivarium for housing birds or rats. This way of identifying experimental units explains why Hurlbert (1984) classifies experimental designs of Type B as pseudoreplicated and why they all reduce to B-5 (see Table 1). In experimental designs of Type B-1, replicates in the treatment condition are spatially adjacent to each other and the same is true for the control condition. In addition, one treatment replicate is adjacent to a control replicate. Thus, replicates are spatially segregated but there is also no clear boundary between the treatment replicates and control replicates. In B-2, the replicates are clearly more spatially clumped and for Hurlbert (1984), they form only one experimental unit and one control unit. In B-3, the experimental replicates only form one unit because they are in the same chamber or room. In B-4, the replicates again form only one unit because there is some identifiable physical connection among replicates even though they are not spatially adjacent. We do not disagree that the spatial arrangement of experimental units is often an important consideration in the design of experiments. What we take issue with is the arbitrary bundling of entities into experimental units based on spatial relationships, boundaries, or physical connectedness. Whether or not spatial relationships, boundaries, or physical connectedness generates statistical dependencies is an empirical question. Our central argument is that statistical dependencies can be detected with appropriate multilevel models, control of physical conditions, or replication of studies. As we show below, relying on the heuristics are believed to avoid pseudoreplication will inevitably reduce the ability to control and detect these statistical dependencies.

424

An obvious problem with trying to settle this problem is that there are no satisfactory criteria for drawing boundaries around experimental units (see Burstein, 1980, for an excellent overview of this problem in the context of education research). Experiments involving organisms often involve multiple levels of units of analysis: individual organisms; repeated measures of behavior of organisms; organisms nested in plots, pens, or rooms; plots, pens, or rooms nested within laboratories or field sites; laboratories or field sites nested in regions; and so forth. Moving up levels can lead to indefinitely many upper levels (e.g., above the room would be buildings, regional laboratories, and even laboratories around the world). If we did not have long established principles for limiting the importance of higher levels, experimental research would be impossible. Representative samples are necessary for estimating population parameters and making inferences at the population level, but questions about causal mechanisms are often much more limited in scope (see Conclusions, below). Over the history of study of causal mechanisms, two important principles have been developed that make progress feasible. First, we control physical conditions at lower levels as much as possible. If successful, there is no reason to analyze higher-level units such as rooms. Failure of control at lower levels can be reliably detected by statistical inference models that account for the possible dependencies at these levels. Second, we depend on replication, both within and between experiments. If the effect in question is truly confounded in a manner that cannot be detected locally, other researchers will fail to replicate the results. This does raise some issues in behavioral or ecological research, when for example studying an endangered species or analyzing experiments of nature that cannot be replicated (Oksanen, 2001, 2004), but the identification of a given experimental unit is an empirical question. Spatiotemporal proximity and connectedness do not always and everywhere imply statistical dependence. An almost trivial example can illustrate what we mean. Suppose we wish to determine which of two urns contains the greater proportion of red to blue marbles. The two urns could be viewed as experimental units representing an experimental design of Type B-5. Suppose the urns are quite large and contain several thousand marbles each: each marble is either red or blue. How could we apply a statistical test to decide if there is a difference in the frequency red marbles without counting all the marbles? One approach would be to implement a controlled experiment. First, stir up the marbles in each urn to make sure they are thoroughly mixed. Second, attach a cup that holds about 10 marbles to the end of a pole. Plunge it into each urn 10 times and draw out about 10 marbles for each sample (after each sample is drawn, put the marbles back in and stir the urn again). Compute the frequency of red marbles for each sample and perform a two-sampled t test with 18 degrees of freedom. Each sample is statistically independent of the other (i.e., the frequency of red marbles in one sample does not statistically depend on any other sample drawn) precisely because of the experimental controls and procedures used to conduct the experiment. Experiments with animals are far more complicated than this toy example, but tools and techniques exist for reasonably analyzing experimental designs that would otherwise be classified as pseu-

doreplicated and rejected without further consideration. Individual researchers will always face the possibility of confounding factors. Whether or not they can increase the odds of detecting confounds depends on how they design their experiments. Hurlbert (1984) offered several recommendations on how to avoid pseudoreplication. As we show below, following this advice can make the detection of confounds more difficult.

Hurlbert (1984) and Kroodsma (1990) recommend averaging measurements within experimental units. In particular, Hurlbert (1984) recommends that multilevel statistical analyses should be avoided because

This [multiple measurements from each experimental unit] is often desirable. It increases the sensitivity of the experiment by increasing the precision with which properties of each experimental unit, and hence each treatment, are estimated. However, multiple samples per experimental unit do not increase the number of degrees of freedom available for testing for a treatment effect. In such tests, the simplest and least errorprone approach usually is to use only a single datum (mean of the samples) for each experimental unit and to omit completely any formal analysis of the data for individual samples and subsamples. Fancier approaches, e.g., nested analyses of variance, will not be any more powerful in detecting treatment effects, but will be more susceptible to calculation and interpretation error (p. 201).

In fairness, the above statement was made prior to the widespread use of multilevel techniques (e.g., Goldstein, 1995; Hox, 1995; Kreft & de Leeuw, 1999; Sniders & Bosker, 1999), but Hurlbert (2004) still did not acknowledge that multilevel models address many of the issues with which he is concerned. Hurlbert does, however, recognize that repeated measures could increase the precision of measurement of the properties of interest. If repeated measures do increase the precision of measurement, this will reduce measurement error and thus increase the likelihood of detecting statistically significant differences. Because there is more information in multiple measurements than a single measurement, they must be appropriately analyzed, which means taking into consideration the degrees of freedom they introduce and the information they reveal. Although Hurlbert (1984) does recognize that there is additional information in multiple measurements, he still recommends averaging. Later, we show that averaging destroys information within units, which may be interesting, important, or lead to the detection of experimental biases. We are not the first to recognize the problem with averaging; it was widely known in the educational research literature prior to the development of the concept of pseudoreplication (Hopkins, 1982). Thus, because averaging destroys information, it should to be avoided.

Pooling

The flip side of averaging is that we should never pool data across units of analysis below treatment and control conditions. For example, a study might be conducted in which treatment and control animals are nested within cages or pens. A nested-ANOVA could be used to assess any effects of the treatment. If there is no statistically significant effect among cages or pens within condi-

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM

425

tions, then it may be justified to pool individuals within conditions and ignore cages or pens as a unit of analysis. This is sacrificial pseudoreplication, according to Hulbert (1984), where the term sacrificial refers to eliminating units of analysis in the data (e.g., cages or pens). To pool or not to pool units comes down to a decision about whether potential units of analysis within conditions are contributing statistically to the observed effects. If they do not, then estimates of error may be better if the level can be pooled into a more accurate estimate of error. Statisticians have worked out how to objectively make these decisions for nonrepeated measures data (e.g., see Bancroft, 1964, for an early paper on this topic). For example, for a 2-level nested ANOVA model, the problem is to decide when to pool estimates of the means squares between nested units with the mean squares within nested units. Rules for setting appropriate values (i.e., the alpha level for concluding there is no effect when pooling data) for when to pool were first given an objective basis using early computers and Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the effects of selecting different values on Type I and II error rates (Bancroft, 1964). The most conservative decision rule is to never pool. The most liberal rule is to always pool. The liberal rule is the most likely to reduce Type II error, but at the expense of potentially increasing the Type I error. Bancroft (1964) and others have recommended a mixed rule in which the decision to pool is based on a p value for an effect of blocks or units greater than 0.25. The key point is that pooling across units of analysis is not necessarily a statistical error. It is a decision made after an appropriate statistical analysis reveals that there are no detectable dependencies across what we thought may have been units of analysis and is quite commonly done in multilevel analyses. Thus, just as we should always choose statistical analyses that reveal the most information, we should not assume information exists for which we have evidence that there effects at the level we would like to pool. We want to emphasize that pooling should only be done by following sound statistical procedures. Leger and Didrichsons (1994) recommended that pooling could be done even on repeated measures data from the same animals and without first testing whether there are statistical differences among units of analysis. Jenkins (2001) showed that the assumptions made about pooling by Leger and Didrichsons (1994) can produce large Type I errors. When effects cannot be ruled out, pooling should be avoided in favor of multilevel approaches.

To illustrate the points just made, we present Monte Carlo simulations of two-level nested data sets from hypothetical experiments. These simulation experiments are generic and could apply to field studies or laboratory studies with individuals nested in pens, plots, or cages. Since the notion of pseudoreplication originated in ecology, we will use an ecological example for purposes of illustration. Suppose a researcher tests a chemical to determine if it acts as a pheromone for attracting male insects of a particular species. The researcher decides to measure the effectiveness of the pheromone by applying it to a square study area, marked off in a 4 4 grid of blocks (i.e., experimental units). The pheromone is applied to eight randomly selected blocks and the other eight blocks are

used as controls. A possible layout is illustrated in Figure 1a. Suppose males are distributed randomly over the square study area for every treated block, and the effect of the pheromone, on average, is to increase the density of males by two per square measurement unit (e.g., square meter), which is about 18% in our simulated experiments. This is illustrated in Figure 1b, where each pixel represents a male. To create a uniform random distribution within each of the blocks of the study area, we generated random integer coordinates for each male only one male can occupy coordinate positionto distribute them into treatment and control at specific densities. Repeated Monte Carlo simulations of sampling with increasing sample size for each block illustrate that the power for the treatment condition goes up in exactly the same way for both averaging and nested ANOVA models (see Figure 2). Thus, the number of samples taken from each block greatly affects statistical power and in the same way for both averaged scores using a t test and for a nested ANOVA, without changing the degrees of freedom at the treatment level. There are two conclusions to draw so far from these simulations regarding averaging. First, if within block sample sizes are the same, then averaging is mathematically equivalent to the treatment level in a nested ANOVA (because a t test performed on data averaged within blocks is mathematically equivalent to the main effect of nested ANOVA model; see also Hopkins, 1982). Second, power increases as the number of samples within blocks increases. Thus, the number of samples or measurements taken within blocks can greatly affect the outcome of a statistical test. There is a reason not to average. Preexisting differences among units, such as systematic spatial gradients, can reduce the power to detect real differences. This suggests that all relevant levels of data should be formally analyzed. Suppose we perform another set of simulation experiments and introduce an exponential contamination gradient into the distribution of males. Suppose the total number of males is partitioned into those affected by the treatment and those that are not. Those that are not, are randomly distributed across the study area with an exponential distribution; the remainders are uniformly distributed within treatment blocks. In Figure 3a, an increasingly strong exponential gradient was produced across the test area (see Figure 1b,d for an example layout and distribution of individuals across space). Correspondingly, the power to detect differences between treatment and control conditions decreased as the gradient became stronger (Figure 3a). Using only an averaging approach provided no information for deciding whether to accept the null hypothesis or suspect a possible Type II error (because of a density gradient across the experimental layout). In nested ANOVAs and other multilevel models (e.g., Goldstein, 1995; Hox, 1995; Kreft & de Leeuw, 1999; Sniders & Bosker, 1999), there is additional information available that may allow such decisions to be made. Figure 3b depicts a power plot for detecting block effects (i.e., discover the systematic gradient) as the gradient is increased. The power to detect the gradient via the block effects approached 1.0 as the gradient becomes stronger. A significant block effect together with no main effect of treatment may indicate a Type II error due to a confound. If this were an actual study, follow up studies should be conducted to determine why there were block effects and how to

426

control for them to reduce possible Type II errors. Conducting this experiment according to the doctrine of pseudoreplication, however, would prevent detection of the block effect. Thus, knowledge about levels of data can be used to design better experiments and to improve statistical power. Returning to our first simulation experiments, we find that pooling can also modestly increase the power of statistical tests (see Figure 2). If a test already has considerable power before pooling, little can be added by pooling (see Figure 2 as power approaches 1.0). Nevertheless, notice that pooling by the mixed rule in Figure 2 does as well or better than the conservative rule for both Type I and Type II errors. If there are block differences (the worst case for the mixed rule, see Figure 3), the mixed rule does not permit pooling when the effect of blocks is significant at level. Thus, pooling is appropriate if proper rules are

followed for when and when not to pool. Hurlbert (2004) has now come to accept the modern view on pooling:

A second situation would be a factorial experiment where each treatment combination is applied to only a single experimental unit. Results from such an experiment could be analyzed with an ANOVA that uses the interaction mean square as an estimate of the true error mean square. If there is no interaction of the treatment factors, the interaction mean square is an unbiased estimate of the true error mean square and its use to test for treatment effects is valid [that is, pooling can be done]. If there is factor interaction, this use of the interaction mean square will render such tests conservative, that is, of low power, so that, again, if low p values are obtained they constitute strong evidence for treatment effects. Thus lack of treatment replication not only does not constitute pseudoreplication, it also does not necessarily preclude valid tests for treatment effects (Hurlbert, 2004, p. 595).

a

T C C C

c

C C C T

Figure 1. Illustrations of possible experimental layouts for the hypothetical pheromone study for two scenarios. Treatment blocks are black and controls are white (a) and correspond to (b). Males are indicated by pixels and the density of males is the number of males per square measurement unit (e.g., square meter). The illustrations on the right consist of a second randomly generated experimental layout (c), which corresponds to (d). The density of males is again indicated by the pixels except now there is an exponential density gradient across the surface (d). This gradient corresponds to the most extreme gradient results illustrated in Figure 3 (below). In both cases, there are on average 18% more males per measurement unit in treatment than control blocks. For the purposes of illustration, however, the treatment blocks have 33% more pixels per measurement unit in the treatment than control conditions because 18% is not easily detectable visually.

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Averaged/Nested Pooled No Effect: Averaged/Nested No Effect: Pooled

427

Sample Size

Figure 2. A comparison of the statistical power of three approaches for calculating p values in the hypothetical pheromone experiment. The design was a 4 4 layout in which samples were randomly collected from the 16 blocks (see Figure 1). For each increment in sample size, 10,000 simulations were run and the power (y-axis) of each test was the proportion of the 10,000 simulations in which a significant effect was detected at the .05 level. Thus, if each simulated experiment detected an effect at the 0.05 level, the power to detect that effect is 1.0. If none were detected, the power was 0.0. Both averaging and the main effect of a nested ANOVA model (for n 2) produced mathematically identical results as expected (but see Figure 5 below). A mixed rule for pooling (B 0.25, see text), resulted in a tiny bit more power in the middle range of the sample sizes tested with no increase in the Type I error rate.

In addition to the recommendations for how to handled data for statistical inference, the doctrine of pseudoreplication has recommendations for the design of experiments. In particular, we find two recommendations problematic: (a) physical control of environmental conditions should apparently be avoided; and (b) treatments and control conditions should be systematically interspersed rather than randomly interspersed.

identity of experimental and control systems in all respects except the treatment variable and its effects (Hurlbert, 1984, pp. 19119).

Hurlbert (1984) distinguished between true controls and regulative controls (i.e., the physical control of environmental conditions).

A third meaning of control in experimental contexts is regulation of the conditions under which the experiment is conducted. It may refer to the homogeneity of experimental units, to the precision of particular treatment procedures, or, most often, to the regulation of the physical environment in which the experiment is conducted. Thus some investigators would speak of an experiment conducted with inbred white mice in the laboratory at 25 1 C as being better controlled or more highly controlled than an experiment conducted with wild mice in a field where temperature fluctuated between 15 and 30. This is unfortunate usage, for the adequacy of the true controls (i.e., control treatments) in an experiment is independent of the degree to which the physical conditions are restricted or regulated. Nor is the validity of the experiment affected by such regulation. Nor are the results of statistical analysis modified by it; if there are no design or statistical errors, the confidence with which we can reject the null hypothesis is indicated by the value of P alone. These factors are little understood by many laboratory scientists. This third meaning of control undoubtedly derives in part from the misinterpretation of the ancient but ambiguous dictum, Hold constant all variables except the one of interest. This refers not to temporal constancy, which of no general value, but only to the desired

Hurlbert appears to reject the importance of physical control or regulation of the environment for the control of possible intervening variables. We believe this is a mistake. While reflexively holding environmental variables constant can be a mistake when they affect responses in treatment and control conditions, not regulating environmental variables can lead to confounded and uninterpretable results. For example, many infant small mammals, such as rats and mice, have at best extremely limited thermoregulatory abilities. Small changes in ambient temperature can qualitatively change behavior (e.g., Blumberg, Efimova, & Alberts, 1992). Failure to regulate environmental variables can also increase variance. For example, an experiment with inbred mice in a temperature-controlled laboratory versus an experiment with field mice with considerable variation in temperature, may lead to considerable differences in variance in the response variables. If mean differences between treatment and control conditions are the same under regulated and unregulated environmental conditions, then the increased variance introduced by unregulated environmental variables may make it practically impossible to detect a genuine effect with the number of animal available (i.e., because the effect size may be greatly reduced in unregulated conditions due to increased variance). It is more important to note that unregulated environmental variables, such as temperature, can exhibit systematic local variation over space and time, which can confound even the best-designed experiments (see the contamination simulations below). Thus, regulation of environmental variables is often essential for well-controlled experiments. This is especially true when the aim is to detect causal mechanisms. Causal mechanisms are typically very complex, involving multiple interacting components that span multiple levels of orga-

428

a

1 0.8

Effect: Conservative Rule Effect: Mixed Rule No Effect: Conservative Rule No Effect: Mixed Rule

Power

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 Effect: Mixed Rule Block Effects

Gradient Strength

Figure 3. A comparison of the statistical information available for different statistical approaches when exponential gradients were created. The strength of the gradient is indicated by the value of the exponent used to generate it (x-axis). The extremes of no gradient (b) to a strong gradient (d) are illustrated in Figure 1. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure followed the procedure described in Figure 2. The treatment, on average, produced a difference of four individuals per block between treatment and controls. Four nonoverlapping random samples were collected from each block for a total of N 64 samples. Gradients reduced the power of statistical tests even with pooling by the mixed rule (B 0.25), which differed negligibly from the conservative rule (a). The reason is that as block differences are detected at the 0.25 level, pooling is not allowed. Using a nested design also permitted the detection of block effects, which indicated a gradient existed and an explanation for the decrease in power even though the mean difference between treatments and controls was, on average, four individuals per square measurement unit for all the gradients (b). Thus, pooling does no harm and by not averaging, it was possible to detect gradients.

nization (Kauffman, 1971; Lehrman, 1953; Tinbergen, 1963). Discovering causes requires careful physical control of possible intervening causal factors and precise experimental manipulations of putative causal mechanisms. Parametric variation of all possible intervening extrinsic variables is an intractable requirement, so holding them constant or carefully regulating them is essential. For example, consider research on genetic mechanisms of behavior using knockout and transgenic animals. In these cases, researchers are ever striving for ideal behavior experiments consisting of mice that are genetically identical except for the mutant gene in question, raised and bred under identical and carefully regulated environmental conditions (Bailey, Rustay, & Crawley, 2006; Crawley, 1999; van der Staay & Steckler, 2001, 2002). To be sure, raising and breeding animals under carefully regulated environmental conditions creates issues for the generalizability of genetic mechanisms to more naturalistic contexts, but it is essential for ruling

out the myriad numbers of possible intervening variables that undermine causal interpretations.

For Hurlbert (1984), the statistical independence of experimental units is achieved by interspersion of treatments across experimental units (i.e., this distribution of experimental units in space and time, which, e.g., can be random or systematic). Of the two notions, interspersion of treatments is more fundamental than randomization: . . . in some ways, interspersion is the more critical concept or feature; randomization is simply a way of achieving interspersion in a way that eliminates the possibility of bias and allows accurate specification of the probability of a Type I error (Hurlbert, 1984, p. 192). This implies that statistical independence

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM

429

depends on the interspersion of treatments in space and time (Hurlbert, 1984). The less interspersed treatments are, the more likely it is that they are statistically dependent, owing to their spatiotemporal proximity (Hurlbert, 1984). In this view, isolation in space and time implies that treatments are not statistically independent (see Table 1) because experimental units are close to each other but far from the control units. As we saw earlier, spatiotemporal proximity was also assumed to imply statistical nonindependence (see Table 1). Thus, if both proximity and isolation create statistical dependence, it appears that interspersion is the only way to get statistical independence. Interspersion, however, places experimental and control units in close spatial proximity, which should create statistical dependencies between experimental control units. It appears that we are damned if we segregate and damned if we intersperse experimental and control units. This inherent inconsistency in the doctrine of pseudoreplication is resolved once we recognize that statistical independence is not mathematically related to either proximity or isolation. Stated simply, two events are statistically independent if and only if the occurrence of one makes the other neither more nor less probable. Numerous factors can influence statistical independence such as spatiotemporal proximity, but these factors should not be confused with the definition of statistical independence. The absurdity of trying to avoid both spatiotemporal proximity and isolation is brought out in an example of how to avoid pseudoreplication by Heffner, Butler, & Reilly (1996):

Let us say, for example, that one wanted to test whether a certain compound found within the young, growing shoots of annual grasses was responsible for the spring onset of the reproductive season in female rodents that eat these grasses. One might design a laboratory study in which females rodents are placed individually in 20 cages, half of which are chosen randomly and supplied with rodent chow with the grass compound added and the other half with unaltered rodent chow (the control). Rodents are then examined daily for signs of estrus. Treatments are clearly replicated in this design. There are 20 cages with a single rodent in each; 10 cages are supplied with the compound and 10 cages are not. However, the replicates are probably not independent unless the cages are situated far apart in separate rooms. Why? Mammalogists know that estrus can be induced in female rodents via airborne chemical cues released by other females already in estrus. Thus, 20 caged rodents held in a single laboratory room will not respond independently to treatments affecting reproductive cycles . . . . (pp. 2558 2559)

occurs in natural populations requires collecting representative data on correlates of the laboratory discovered mechanism (e.g., age and consumption of grass shoots and estrus onset). The subordination of randomization to interspersion also violates one of the most fundamental practices of modern scientific research. Fisher (1935) was among the first to advocate random assignment of individuals to treatments and treatments to blocks (Gigerenzer et al., 1989). The point of randomization is to prevent the conscious or unconscious creation of correlations between individuals within and among all levels of the data prior to an experiment. Every parametric and nonparametric statistical technique assumes randomization. Even critics of null hypothesis significance testing (e.g., Gigerenzer et al., 1989) recognize the fundamental importance of randomization in the design of experiments. By making randomization a secondary priority, the doctrine of pseudoreplication violates this assumption. Moreover, as the results of our Monte Carlo experiments show, interspersion without randomization results in a decreased ability to detect contamination and block effects.

According to the doctrine of pseudoreplication, because interspersion is more fundamental than randomization, randomization produces layouts that are inadequately interspersed (Hurlbert, 1984). Figure 4a is a maximally interspersed layout forming the ideal checkerboard shape for interspersed square layouts. Figure 4b illustrates three examples of random but probably unsatisfactory interspersive layouts (see Table 1). The first thing to notice about the layout in Figure 4a is that there are only two such layouts for any even subdivision of a square area (just invert the black and white squares for the other maximally interspersed layout in Figure 4a). Thus, as the dimensions of a square layout increase, the proportion of maximally interspersed layouts rapidly decreases (e.g., for 4 4 layouts, the proportion of maximally interspersed layouts is 0.00016). Nonperfectly interspersed layouts are overwhelmingly typical in the set of all possible n n layouts. For instance, in Figure 4c, we randomly flipped two blocks in the maximally interspersed layout at the top (see Figure 4) and produced a very unsatisfactory interspersed layout. Of the 12,870 (i.e., 16!/[8!8!]) possible layouts for a 4 4 layout, 12,868 may be inadequately interspersed, and no criterion is provided for accepting appropriately interspersed layouts except for the bad layout illustrated in Figure 1 of Hurlbert (1984). If randomization often fails to produce sufficient interspersion, can randomization be eliminated? According to Hurlbert (1984), the only real problem with systematic designs is the . . .risk that the spacing interval coincides with the period of some periodically varying property of the experimental area. That risk is very small in most field situations (Hurlbert, 1984, p. 194). It may seem unlikely that spatial patterns will exactly correspond to systematic layouts, but as we will show, they are easily produced by interactions or contamination among units. Thus, we believe that it is an error use systematic interspersion rather than random dispersion. To illustrate this point, consider a third set of simulation experiments. This time suppose that experimental procedure applied to the treatment blocks results in contamination of adjacent control blocks. Suppose that the degree of contamination is proportional to the number of experimental blocks surrounding each control block.

In this case, each cage is an experimental unit. Cages within the same room are not independent, and can lead to pseudoreplication (Table 1, B-4.1). If treatment conditions are segregated by rooms, however, then the experimental units within rooms are no longer independent (see experimental designs B-3). Thus, to segregate treatment conditions by room implies that experimental units are statistically dependent, but not to separate them also results in statistical dependence. This illustrates the inconsistency in the doctrine of pseudoreplication of logically tying spatiotemporal proximity to statistical dependence, but it also highlights that controlled manipulative experiments are typically about mechanisms and not population parameters. In Heffners hypothetical experiment, the hypothesis of interest is whether the compounds found in young grass shoots cause early estrus. This requires careful control of physical conditions. Whether this mechanism

430

a

b

1 1 1 1 1

c

1

Figure 4. An illustration of a systematic design (a) and various random designs (b and c). The layout in (c) was created by randomly flipping two blocks in the systematic design (a) to the opposite shading.

For example, in the hypothetical pheromone study, the application of the pheromone to treatment areas caused females in nontreated control blocks to release a sexual attractant pheromone in proportion to the pheromone present in surrounding blocks. Figure 4a illustrates a completely systematic 4 4 layout. Notice that there are two control blocks surrounded on all four sides by experimental blocks, but the remaining control blocks are surrounded on three sides. In the three other example random layouts illustrated in Figure 4b-c, all possible variations can occur by chance ranging from no control blocks adjacent to an experimental block to all four sides adjacent. If contamination of control blocks is a function of the number of sides adjacent to an experimental block, there will be less variation in general among blocks in a systematic design than for random layouts. Thus, contamination effects are more likely detected as an effect of blocks using a randomized design than a systematic design. By detecting possible contamination effects via completely randomized layouts, Type II error rates can be reduced and more accurate estimates of effect size can be achieved. Figure 5 illustrates the results of a series of simulated contamination experiments on the power to detect a difference. Power decreased as expected for both systematic and random layouts as the degree of contamination increased (i.e., the observed difference between treatment and control means decreased as a function of contamination from treatment to control

blocks). As contamination increased for random layouts, however, so did the likelihood of finding an effect by blocks. This was not true for systematic (i.e., interspersed) designs. An effect by blocks could mean several things, such as preexisting differences among blocks, but it could also indicate that contamination occurred during a study. Finding a significant effect by blocks signals to an investigator that the investigator should search for the source of the significant block effect, which may lead to the discovery of contamination and the subsequent redesign of a study to control for contamination allowing the detection of actual effects. It is possible to deliberately avoid detection of small block effects, for instance by using small sample sizes (Wiley, 2003), but researchers should aim for the detection of all biases imposed by an experimental design, small or large, to facilitate progress in the testing of theories. This is also another reason to avoid averaging over samples or measurements within experimental units, because information is lost that may point to contamination or other intervening variables that can increase Type I or Type II errors.

Conclusions

The ready reception Hurlberts (1984) paper received shows how a wide audience perceived deep problems with the literature in ecology. But what were the problems? The problems seem to

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Treatment: Random Blocks: Random Treatment: Sytematic Blocks: Systematic

431

Figure 5. A comparison of systematic and random 4 4 layouts with contamination (see Figures 1 and 4). With no contamination, the difference between treatment and control means is 8, but as contamination increases the difference between treatment and control means decreases from left to right on the x-axis. The y-axis is the power to detect differences between treatment and control means and among blocks. The simulation procedure was the same as described in the legend of Figure 2. There was, however, contamination between control and treatment blocks as a function of the number of sides that happen to be adjacent among blocks. For example, a control block surrounded by three treatment blocks received three times the contamination received by a control block adjacent to only one treatment block. We assumed that, independent of contamination, the expected difference between control and treatment conditions was eight individuals, and four nonoverlapping samples were collected from each block. Contamination will decrease the difference between treatment and control conditions and thus the power to detect differences. The most extreme contamination reduced the expected difference to less than 1.0. As expected, contamination reduced the expected difference between treatment and control conditions and the power to detect an effect decreased rapidly after the expected difference fell below four. This was true for both random and systematic layouts. The power to detect block effects caused by contamination, however, only increased for random layouts and not systematic layouts. This is because contamination in systematic designs was about the same for each control block by virtue of the uniform layout. Thus, a random layout increases the power to detect confounds such as contamination and therefore alert a researcher to possible experimental error and failure to detect an actual effect.

boil down to how to analyze data and how to design experiments appropriate for statistical inference. Hurlberts (1984) overemphasis on the relationship between statistical independence and spatiotemporal proximity is at the heart of the problem with pseudoreplication and led to recommendations on how to handle data and design experiments that were unsound. Developments in multilevel modeling can handle many of the worries associated with multilevel and repeated measures data (e.g., Goldstein, 1995; Hox, 1995; Kreft & de Leeuw, 1999; Sniders & Bosker, 1999). For example, Stamps and Blozis (2006) represent collaboration between an animal behavior researcher and quantitative psychologist in the application of multilevel modeling. Their paper is an interesting demonstration of the use of multilevel modeling and shows how artifacts can arise when data are averaged at a given level. Similarly, problems with gathering and analyzing data in sociology and education research (Cronbach, 1976; Hammond, 1973; Lindquist, 1940; Robinson, 1950) were overcome through the use of more complex, multilevel statistical models (e.g., Hopkins, 1982; Raudenbush & Bryk, 1988). Animal behavior research has long known about nested and mixed model ANOVA (e.g., Kirk, 1982), but these advances do not seem to have percolated into the ecological literature in the way that pseudoreplication percolated into animal behavior. It is not always practical to use multilevel statistical analyses because of the number of animals available and physical constraints

on the facilities available to test themthough with the development multilevel models in addition to HLM, small sample size is less problematic (e.g., Hox & Maas, 2001; Qian & Shen, 2007; Zhang & Wilson, 2006). Does this imply that these constraints are serious inferential limitations on behavioral research with relatively small numbers of animals? There is no easy answer to this question; it can only be answered on a case-by-case basis by taking into account an entire study, its design, and relation to previous results. Consider, for example, Freed-Brown, King, Miller, & Wests (2006) study of female sociality in cowbirds. Viewed from the perspective of Hurlbert (1984), this study was a paradigm of pseudoreplication, involving only two replicates of adult females with juvenile males and two replicates of juvenile males and females. Statistical tests were done within and between groups and repeated measures were compared across experimental conditions over time. Yet, a careful reading of this study reveals an elegant series of seven experiments that taken as a whole address specific hypotheses and provide controls for each other. For instance, in Experiments 2 and 7, juvenile males were switched across replicates (2) and social conditions (7) revealing that switching across replicates had no effect but across social conditions did have effects. Throughout the presentation of the study, reference was made to previous replication of results. Although space limits an adequate review, the point we wish to make is that evaluating research and inferences is far more difficult than applying simple heuristic rules.

432

SCHANK AND KOEHNLE tivores: Quality of statistical analyses. Bulletin of Marine Science, 53, 128 153. Hurlbert, S. H. (1994). Old shibboleths and new syntheses (Book review). Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 495 496. Hurlbert, S. H. (1997). Experiments in ecology (Book review). Endeavour, 21, 172173. Hurlbert, S. H. (2004). On misinterpretations of pseudoreplication and related matters: A reply to Oksanen. Oikos, 104, 591597. Jenkins, S. H. (2001). Data pooling and Type I errors: A comment on Leger & Didrichsons. Animal Behaviour, 63, 9 11. Kauffman, S. A. (1971). Articulation of parts explanation in biology and the rational search for them. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, 257272. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. Kreft, I., & de Leeuw. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kroodsma, D. E. (1989). Suggested experimental designs for song playbacks. Animal Behaviour, 37, 600 609. Kroodsma, D. E. (1990). Using appropriate experimental designs for intended hypotheses in song playbacks, with examples for testing effects of song repertoire sizes. Animal Behaviour, 40, 1138 1150. Kroodsma, D. E., Byers, B. E., Goodale, E., Johnson, S., & Liu, W. (2001). Pseudoreplication in playback experiments, revisited a decade later. Animal Behaviour, 61, 1029 1033. Leger, D. W., & Didrichsons, I. A. (1994). An assessment of data pooling and some alternatives. Animal Behaviour, 48, 823 832. Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenzs theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology, 28, 337363. Lindquist, F. (1940). Statistical analysis in educational research. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Lombardi, C. M., & Hurlbert, S. H. (1996). Sunfish cognition and pseudoreplication. Animal Behaviour, 52, 419 422. McGregor, P. K., Catchpole, C. K., Dabelsteen, T., Falls, J. B., Fusani, L., Gerhardt, H. C., et al. (1992). Design of playback experiments: The Thornbridge Hall NATO ARW Consensus. In P. K. McGregor (Ed.), Playback and studies of animal communication (pp. 19). New York: Plenum Press. Millar P. B., & Anderson, M. J. (2004). Remedies for pseudoreplication. Fisheries Research, 70, 397 407. Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley. Oksanen, L. (2001). Logic of experiments in ecology: Is pseudoreplication a pseudoissue? Oikos, 94, 2738. Oksanen, L. (2004). The devil lies in details: Reply to Stuart Hurlbert. Oikos, 104, 598 605. Pearson, K. (1896). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. III Regression, heredity, and panmaxia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Series A), 187, 253318. Qian S. S,, & Shen, Z. (2007). Ecological applications of multilevel analysis of variance. Ecology, 88, 2489 2495. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Methodological advances in analyzing the effects of schools and classrooms on student learning. Review of Research in Education, 15, 423 475. Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351357. Sniders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stamps, J. A., & Blozis, S. A. (2006). Effects of natal experience on habitat selection when individuals make choices in groups: A multilevel analysis. Animal Behaviour, 71, 663 672. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fu r Tierpsychologie, 20, 410 429.

Pseudoreplication is, at best, a neologism for the long recognized problem of experimental confounds (Underwood, 1997) or for the failure of statistical independence (Millar & Anderson, 2004), but at worst, it is a pseudoproblem that sets impossible standards for design and analysis of experiments. Our recommendation is that pseudoreplication not be invoked when reviewing research manuscripts and research proposals. The critical reevaluation of pseudoreplication presented here and elsewhere (Oksanen, 2001, 2004) suggests that reviewers and editors should not use the term pseudoreplication as a criterion for evaluating experimental research. Reviewers and editors should consider the inferential context of the study under consideration and clearly articulate the exact nature of potential confounds, the adequacy of experimental controls, and consider the context of the entire study.

References

Bailey, K. R., Rustay, N. R., & Crawley, J. N. (2006). Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice: Practical concerns and potential pitfalls. ILAR Journal, 42, 124 131. Bancroft, T. A. (1964). Analysis and inference for incompletely specified models involving the use of preliminary tests(s) of significance. Biometrica, 20, 427 442. Blumberg, M. S., Efimova, I. V., & Alberts, J. R. (1992). Ultrasonic vocalizations by rat pups: The primary importance of ambient temperature and the thermal significance of contact comfort. Developmental Psychobiology, 25, 229 250. Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. Review of Research in Education, 8, 158 233. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (P0.05). American Psychologist, 49, 9971003. Crawley, J. N. (1999). Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice: Experimental design and evaluation of general health, sensory functions, motor abilities, and specific behavioral tests. Brain Research, 835, 18 26. Cronbach, L. J. (1976). Research on classrooms and schools: Formulation of questions, design, and analysis (Occasional Paper). Stanford, CA: Stanford Evaluation Consortium. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Freed-Brown, S. G., King, A. P., Miller, J. L., & West, M. J. (2006). Uncovering sources of variation in female sociality: Implications for the development of social preferences in female cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Behaviour, 143, 12931315. Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z. Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Kruger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. New York: Halsted. Hammond, J. K. (1973). Two sources of error in ecological correlations. American Sociological Review, 38, 764 777. Heffner, R. A., Butler, I. V., M. J. & Reilly, C. K. (1996). Pseudoreplication revisited. Ecology, 77, 2558 2562. Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The unit of analysis: Group means versus individual observations. American Education Research Journal, 19, 518. Hox, J. J. (1995). Applied multilevel analysis. Amsterdam: TT-Publikaties. Hox, J. J., & Maas, M. (2001). The accuracy of multilevel structural equation modeling with pseudobalanced groups and small samples. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 157174. Hurlbert, S. H. (1984). Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs, 51, 187211. Hurlbert, S. H. (1993). Experiments with freshwater invertebrate zooplank-

PSEUDOREPLICATION IS A PSEUDOPROBLEM Underwood, A. J. (1997). Experiments in ecology: Their logical design and interpretation using analysis of variance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. van der Staay, F. J., & Steckler, T. (2001). Behavioral phenotyping of mouse mutants. Behavioural Brain Research, 125, 312. van der Staay, F. J., & Steckler, T. (2002). The fallacy of behavioral phenotyping without standardization. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 1, 9 13. Wiley, R. H. (2003). Is there an ideal behavioural experiment? Animal Behaviour, 66, 585588.

433

Yang, Z., & Schank, J. C. (2006). Women do not synchronize their menstrual cycles. Human Nature, 17, 333347. Zhang, D., & Wilson, V. L. (2006). Comparing empirical power of multilevel structural equation models and hierarchical linear models: Understanding cross-level interactions. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 615 630.

Received August 3, 2006 Revision received June 12, 2008 Accepted June 16, 2008

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate more in this process. If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write APA Journals at Reviewers@apa.org. Please note the following important points: To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective review. To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission within the context of existing research. To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information. Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example, social psychology is not sufficientyou would need to specify social cognition or attitude change as well. Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript thoroughly.

- 1. 2013 Rose ASS ScopusEnviado porRatna Azizah
- Jurnal 2Enviado porReni Purnama
- Two One-sided t TestsEnviado porGajananNaik
- Chap1_newEnviado porMark
- Feldman10_ppt_ch02Enviado porhamza_shaukat
- unit 1- introduction to scienceEnviado porapi-285146233
- JKTech Statistics BrochureEnviado porRonald Tessén
- shea lab presentation fall 2012Enviado porapi-193735852
- Sampling and Intro PowerEnviado porhalloo999
- Biological TechnicianEnviado porRamadan Physiology
- 1_The Role of the Audit Committee_engEnviado porAvani Dahiya
- HIV and DiscriminationEnviado porAyu Ersya Windira
- DEVELOPMENT OF HIV/AIDS AND LIFE SKILLS EDUCATION BOOKLET FOR STUDENT TEACHERS AND STUDY ITS EFFECTIVENESSEnviado porAnonymous CwJeBCAXp
- It.docEnviado porzakibrant23
- Educaton Paper IEnviado porArjinder Singh
- jennaomalley cap standard2Enviado porapi-206004797
- Sidman- Equivalence relations and behavior.pdfEnviado porHenryGutiérrezH
- complete unitEnviado porapi-442294550
- OPTIMIZATION OF PRODUCTION PROCESS OF SOYA OIL.Enviado porIJAR Journal
- the effect of mozarts music on child development in a jordanian kindergartenEnviado porapi-252404346
- sample science lessonEnviado porapi-284029251
- Lab ReportEnviado porelizabeth shaw gonzalez
- Lab 1_Torsion Experiment.pdfEnviado pormuaz
- Physics PaperEnviado porjohn mark
- jamescopyofscimethod test docxEnviado porapi-238818611
- StatisticsEnviado porhoogggleee
- MONITORING CORRUPTION: EVIDENCE FROM A FIELD EXPERIMENT IN INDONESIAEnviado portalantas
- Basic Statistics and Probability QuestionsEnviado porMariel Soriano
- occt 504 term paper-article critiqueEnviado porapi-201999002
- Lab report1Enviado porapi-3854705

- Appendix 1 - Niobrara River Background.pdfEnviado porpepoandino
- Null hypothesis significance tests. A mix-up of two different theories: The basis for widespread confusion and numerous misinterpretationsEnviado porpepoandino
- Amoros 2002Enviado porpepoandino
- JunioEnviado porpepoandino
- 1-s2.0-S0895981112001307-mainEnviado porpepoandino
- INF 102 ImarpeEnviado porpepoandino
- 14 07 Ictiólogos RAREnviado porpepoandino
- 3.4.1_PayneEnviado porpepoandino
- An Adjustment to Beta Diversity in the cEnviado porpepoandino
- Partitioning beta diversity of aquatic Oligochaeta in different environments of a Neotropical floodplainEnviado porpepoandino
- Recomendaciones a TdR Hidrovia_WCS y UTECEnviado porpepoandino
- Appendix 5 Riparian Ecology.pdfEnviado porpepoandino
- Manual de analisis de aguas.pdfEnviado porLuis M Lipa M
- A catalogue of aquatic microdrile oligochaetes (Annelida: Clitellata) from South AmericaEnviado porpepoandino
- Impactos hidrovía ParaguayEnviado porpepoandino
- Artigo 4 (Butchart Et Al. 2010)-Biodiv-DeclinningEnviado porpepoandino
- disenoinvconservacionEnviado porpepoandino
- qbr2Enviado porpepoandino
- BSc Thesis / BostryxEnviado porkypppu
- Manual de IctiofaunaEnviado porDani Solarte Bermudez
- 7126 Manejocochas Wwf LaureanopurusEnviado porpepoandino
- Climate ChangeEnviado porpepoandino
- 01 RAP Working Papers_madidiEnviado porpepoandino
- PSEUDOREPLICACIONEnviado porDavid Mero del Valle
- 0021 TL S Metodologia Caudal Ambiental Abril 2013Enviado porpepoandino
- Richter PaperEnviado porpepoandino
- bis111hEnviado porpepoandino
- YSI Professional Plus Water Quality Meter SpecificationsEnviado porPatrick Higgins
- Pub.20 PlanmaestropacayaEnviado porpepoandino

- resumeEnviado porapi-357520966
- IRJET-A Study on Risk Assessment using Probability-Impact Matrix Method for a Multi-Storeyed Residential BuildingEnviado porIRJET Journal
- Phenomenology of the Experiential Awareness FieldEnviado porRudy Bauer
- Capital & Class Volume 37 issue 3 2013 [doi 10.1177%2F0309816813505020] Gaido, D.; Quiroga, M. -- The early reception of Rosa Luxemburg's theory of imperialism.pdfEnviado porSachin Kumar
- Participant's Moot Guide - MemorialsEnviado porchitru_chichru
- science current events with rubricEnviado porapi-233366095
- How Good is Your FeedbackEnviado porCameliaAlexandruG
- Religious Evolution of 'isms'.pdfEnviado porJodie Barry
- Theory of EquationsEnviado porAbhijeet Dash
- win95Enviado porIllury
- War on Drugs Began 14 Centuries AgoEnviado porJamshaidzubairee
- HRSSP Project OverviewEnviado porHRNERR
- 3484-3108_kotler_mm13e_im_01Enviado porPdjadeja
- Business Ethics PHI2043S 2017Enviado porneexmeyer
- task sheet 1 portfolio grade 7 sambathEnviado porapi-238817915
- 12 Strand Dna RestructuringEnviado porRozina Parmar
- bookclub1reflection 1Enviado porapi-353833477
- 2011 Behaviour Change Techniques Used in Group-Based Behavioural SupportEnviado porvic zhou
- Ds Lecture 6Enviado pornoname1
- Sanskrit DictionaryEnviado porSudarshan S. Avadhany
- Gentle Introductions to LacanEnviado porJoseVega
- Case Study #2Enviado porHallie Moberg Brauer
- RESEARCH BRIEF -Differential Impact of Infrastructure Access on Economic Well-Being in Rural GhanaEnviado porGye Nyame
- Child Protection PolicyEnviado porMohamedi Miraji
- first year writng rhetorical analysisEnviado porapi-339990756
- activating strategies on a ringEnviado porapi-273804717
- A._Living_and_Studying_Abroad___2006.pdfEnviado pormedjac
- LandauEnviado porPrigui
- Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story by Ben Carson & Cecil Murphey, Chapter 1Enviado porZondervan
- Worksheet 2-4 p. 2Enviado porbriandmcneill