Electronic Journal of Statistics

On stepwise control of the generalized familywise error rate

Wenge Guo and M. Bhaskara Rao
Source: Electron. J. Statist. Volume 4 (2010), 472-485.

Abstract

A classical approach for dealing with a multiple testing problem is to restrict attention to procedures that control the familywise error rate (FWER), the probability of at least one false rejection. In many applications, one might be willing to tolerate more than one false rejection provided the number of such cases is controlled, thereby increasing the ability of a procedure to detect false null hypotheses. This suggests replacing control of the FWER by controlling the probability of k or more false rejections, which is called the k-FWER. In this article, a unified approach is presented for deriving the k-FWER controlling procedures. We first generalize the well-known closure principle in the context of the FWER to the case of controlling the k-FWER. Then, we discuss how to derive the k-FWER controlling stepup procedures based on marginal p-values using this principle. We show that, under certain conditions, generalized closed testing procedures can be reduced to stepup procedures, and any stepup procedure is equivalent to a generalized closed testing procedure. Finally, we generalize the well-known Hommel procedure in two directions, and show that any generalized Hommel procedure is equivalent to a generalized closed testing procedure with the same critical values.

First Page: Show Hide
Primary Subjects: 62J15
Secondary Subjects: 62G10
Full-text: Open access
Links and Identifiers

Permanent link to this document: http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ejs/1275403739
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/08-EJS320
Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet): MR2657378

References

[1] Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing., J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 57, 289–300.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1325392
[2] Benjamini, Y. and Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency., Ann. Statist., 29, 1165–1188.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1869245
Zentralblatt MATH: 1041.62061
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1013699998
[3] Bernhard, G., Klein, M. and Hommel, G. (2004). Global and multiple test procedures using ordered p-values – A review., Statist. Pap., 45, 1–14.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2019782
Zentralblatt MATH: 1085.62017
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF02778266
[4] Calian, V., Li, D., and Hsu, J. (2008). Partitioning to uncover conditions for permutation to control multiple testing error rate., Biometrical Journal, 50, 756–766.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2542341
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1002/bimj.200710471
[5] Dudoit, S. and van der Laan, M. (2008)., Multiple Testing Procedures with Applications to Genomics. Springer, New York.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2373771
Zentralblatt MATH: 05234992
[6] Dudoit, S., van der Laan, M. and Pollard, K. (2004). Multiple testing. Part I. Single-step procedures for control of general type I error rates., Statist. Appl. Gen. Mol. Biol., 3(1), Article 13.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2101462
Zentralblatt MATH: 1166.62338
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1040
[7] Falk, R. W. (1989). Hommel’s Bonferroni-type inequality for unequally spaced levels., Biometrika, 76, 189–191.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR991439
Zentralblatt MATH: 0678.62071
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/76.1.189
[8] Finner, H. and Strassburger, K. (2002). The partititoning principle: a powerful tool in multiple decision theory., Ann. Statist., 30 1194–1213.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1926174
Zentralblatt MATH: 1029.62064
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/aos/1031689023
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1031689023
[9], k-FWER control without multiplicity correction, with application to detection of genetic determinants of multiple sclerosis in Italian twins. Biometrics, in press.
[10] Grechanovsky, E. and Hochberg, Y. (1999). Closed procedures are better and often admit a shortcut., J. Statist. Plann. Inf., 76, 79–91.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1673341
Zentralblatt MATH: 0791.62066
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/S0378-3758(98)00125-6
[11] Guo, W. and Romano, J. (2007). A generalized Sidak-Holm procedure and control of generalized error rates under independence., Statist. Appl. Gen. Mol. Biol., 6(1), Article 3.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2306938
Zentralblatt MATH: 1166.62316
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1247
[12] Hochberg, Y. (1988). A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance., Biometrika, 75, 800–802.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR995126
Zentralblatt MATH: 0661.62067
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/75.4.800
[13] Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure., Scand. J. Statist., 6 65–70.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR538597
[14] Hommel, G. (1986). Multiple test procedures for arbitrary dependence structures., Metrika, 33, 321–336.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR868042
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1007/BF01894765
[15] Hommel, G. (1988). A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test., Biometrika, 75, 383–386.
[16] Hommel, G. (1989). A comparison of two modified Bonferroni procedures., Biometrika, 76, 624–625.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1040659
Zentralblatt MATH: 0676.62028
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/76.3.624
[17] Hommel, G. and Hoffmann, T. (1987). Controlled uncertainty. In, Multiple Hypothesis Testing (eds P. Bauer, G. Hommel, and E. Sonnemann), 154-162. Springer, Heidelberg.
[18] Huang, Y. and Hsu, J. (2007). Hochberg’s step-up method : cutting corners off Holm’s step-down method., Biometrika, 94, 965–975.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2416802
Zentralblatt MATH: 1156.62049
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/asm067
[19] Karlin, S. and Rinott, Y. (1980). Classes of orderings of measures and related correlation inequalities. Part I. Multivariate totally positive distributions., J. Mult. Anal., 10, 467–498.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR599685
Zentralblatt MATH: 0469.60006
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/0047-259X(80)90065-2
[20] Korn, E., Troendle, J., McShane, L. and Simon, R. (2004). Controlling the number of false discoveries: Application to high-dimensional genomic data., J. Statist. Plann. Inf., 124, 379–398.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2080371
Zentralblatt MATH: 1074.62070
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/S0378-3758(03)00211-8
[21] Lehmann, E. L. and Romano, J. P. (2005). Generalizations of the familywise error rate., Ann. Statist., 33, 1138–1154.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2195631
Zentralblatt MATH: 1072.62060
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/009053605000000084
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1120224098
[22] Liu, W. (1996). Multiple tests of a non-hierarchical family of hypotheses., J. R. Statist. Soc. B, 58, 455–461.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1377844
[23] Marcus, R., Peritz, E. and Gabriel, K. R. (1976). On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance., Biometrika, 63, 655–660.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR468056
Zentralblatt MATH: 0353.62037
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.655
[24], Röhmel, J. and Streitberg, B. (1987). Zur Konstruktion globaler Tests. EDV Med. Biol., 18, 7–11.
[25] Romano, J. P. and Shaikh, A. M. (2006). Stepup procedures for control of generalizations of the familywise error rate., Ann. Statist., 34, 1850–1873.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2283720
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/009053606000000461
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1162567636
[26] Romano, J. P. and Wolf, M. (2007). Control of generalized error rates in multiple testing., Ann. Statist., 35, 1378–1408.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2351090
Zentralblatt MATH: 1127.62063
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/009053606000001622
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1188405615
[27] Rüger, B. (1978). Das maximale Signifikanzniveau des Tests “Lehne, H0 ab, wenn k unter n gegebenen Tests zur Ablehnung führen”. Metrika, 25, 171–178.
[28] Sarkar, S. K. (1998). Some probability inequalities for ordered, MTP2 random variables: a proof of the Simes conjecture. Ann. Statist., 26, 494–504.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR1626047
Zentralblatt MATH: 0929.62065
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/aos/1028144846
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1028144846
[29] Sarkar, S. K. (2007). Stepup procedures controlling generalized FWER and generalized FDR., Ann. Statist. 35 2405–2420.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2382652
Zentralblatt MATH: 1129.62066
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/009053607000000398
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1201012966
[30] Sarkar, S. K. (2008). Generalizing Simes’ test and Hochberg’s stepup procedure., Ann. Statist. 36, 337–363.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2387974
Zentralblatt MATH: 05248853
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/009053607000000550
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1201877304
[31] Sarkar, S. K. and Guo, W. (2009a). On a generalized false discovery rate., Ann. Statist., 37, 337–363.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2509083
Zentralblatt MATH: 1161.62041
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1214/08-AOS617
Project Euclid: euclid.aos/1239369031
[32] Sarkar, S. K. and Guo, W. (2009b). Procedures controlling generalized false discovery rate., Statistica Sinica, in press.
[33] Simes, R. J. (1986). An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance., Biometrika, 73, 751–754.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR897872
Zentralblatt MATH: 0613.62067
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1093/biomet/73.3.751
[34] Stefansson, G., Kim, W. and Hsu, J. C. (1988). On confidence sets in multiple comparisons. In Gupta, S. S. and Berger, J. O. (eds.), Statistical Decision Theory and Related Topics IV, Vol. 2, 89–104. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR927125
[35] van der Laan, M., Birkner, M. and Hubbard, A. (2005). Resampling based multiple testing procedure controlling tail probability of the proportion of false positives., Statist. Appl. Gen. Mol. Biol., 4(1), Article 29.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2170445
Zentralblatt MATH: 1108.62303
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.2202/1544-6115.1143
[36] van der Laan, M., Dudoit, S. and Pollard, K. (2004). Augmentation procedures for control of the generalized family-wise error rate and tail probabilities for the proportion of false positives., Statist. Appl. Gen. Mol. Biol., 3(1), Article 15.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2101464
Zentralblatt MATH: 1166.62379
[37] Xu, H. and Hsu, J. (2007). Using the Partitioning Principle to control the generalized Family Error Rate., Biometrical Journal, 49, 52–67.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2339216
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1002/bimj.200610307
[38] Yekutieli, D. (2008). False discovery rate control for non-positively regression dependent test statistics., Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 138, 405–415.
Mathematical Reviews (MathSciNet): MR2412595
Zentralblatt MATH: 1138.62040
Digital Object Identifier: doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2007.06.006

2012 © Institute of Mathematical Statistics

Electronic Journal of Statistics

Electronic Journal of Statistics