{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03268765133171913, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01937046004842615, 'mean_word_length': 4.823943661971831, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Research Design and Analysis Clinic

KENNETH D. HOPKINS, Ph.D. BEVERLY L. ANDERSON, M.A. Laboratory of Educational Research University of Colorado The need for a researcher’s guide to the use of multiple-comparison (MC) techniques is illustrated by recent studies by Tringo (1970) and Wilson (1971). Although these are not poor studies, they illustrate the two extremes in their selection and use of a MC technique. Tringo (1970) used multiple t tests to make comparisons among seven groups; the resultant multiple t tests have an inordinately high risk of falsely rejecting a true null hypothesis. Wilson (1971) employed the Scheffd test to detect significant differences among three means; this method is the most conservative and least powerful of all MC methods for contrasting pairs of means. When there are more than two