In this paper, the performance of six types of techniques for comparisons of means is examined. These six emerge from the distinction between the method employed (hypothesis testing, model selection using information criteria, or Bayesian model selection) and the set of hypotheses that is investigated (a classical, exploration-based set of hypotheses containing equality constraints on the means, or a theory-based limited set of hypotheses with equality and/or order restrictions). A simulation study is conducted to examine the performance of these techniques. We demonstrate that, if one has specific, a priori specified hypotheses, confirmation (i.e., investigating theory-based hypotheses) has advantages over exploration (i.e., examining all possible equality-constrained hypotheses). Furthermore, examining reasonable order-restricted hypotheses has more power to detect the true effect/non-null hypothesis than evaluating only equality restrictions. Additionally, when investigating more than one theory-based hypothesis, model selection is preferred over hypothesis testing. Because of the first two results, we further examine the techniques that are able to evaluate order restrictions in a confirmatory fashion by examining their performance when the homogeneity of variance assumption is violated. Results show that the techniques are robust to heterogeneity when the sample sizes are equal. When the sample sizes are unequal, the performance is affected by heterogeneity. The size and direction of the deviations from the baseline, where there is no heterogeneity, depend on the effect size (of the means) and on the trend in the group variances with respect to the ordering of the group sizes. Importantly, the deviations are less pronounced when the group variances and sizes exhibit the same trend (e.g., are both increasing with group number).
Keywords: (Bayesian) model selection; confirmation; heterogeneity; hypothesis testing; order-restricted constraints.
© 2014 The British Psychological Society.