Advertisement

Randomization and Design: II

  • Rick Picard
Part of the Lecture Notes in Statistics book series (LNS, volume 1)

Abstract

Fisher contributed greatly to the advancement of experimental design. Prior to his work, little had been accomplished in the area. Before the 1920s, many people had conducted agricultural field trials, but there were no widely accepted techniques concerning their layout or analysis. Consequently, things were done in whatever manner pleased the experimenter, and statistical analyses of the time were crude and lacking in theoretical justification.

Keywords

Royal Statistical Society Large Scale Experiment Balance Design Fertility Trend Balance Arrangement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Hall, A.D. and W.A. Mercer (1911). “The Experimental Error of Field Trials,” Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, 107–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Neyman, J. (. 1923 ). “Sur les Applications de la Théorie des Probabilitiés aux Expériences Agricoles: Essay des Principes,” Roczniki Nauk Rolniczch, 10, 1–51.Google Scholar
  3. Neyman, J. and E.S. Pearson (1937). “Note on Some Points in Student’s Paper on ‘Comparison Between Balanced and Random Arrangements of Field Plots’,” Biometrika, 30, 380–388.Google Scholar
  4. Pearl, R. and F.M. Surface (1916). “A Method of Correcting for Soil Heterogeneity in Variety Tests,” Journal of Agricultural Research, 5, 1039–1050.Google Scholar
  5. Pearson, E.S. (1933). “Some Aspects of the Problem of Randomization. II. An Illustration of ‘Student’s’ Inquiry into the Effect of Balancing in Agricultural Experiments,” Biometrika, 30, 159–171.Google Scholar
  6. Pearson, E.S. and M.G. Kendall (1970). Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability. Volume 1. London: C. Griffin and Company.Google Scholar
  7. Russell, J. (1926). “Field Experiments: How They Are Made and What They Are,” Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 32, 989–1001.Google Scholar
  8. Savage, I.R. (1976). “On Re-Reading R.A. Fisher,” The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 4, 442–475.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Scheffé, H. (1959). The Analysis of Variance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. “Student” (1923). “On Testing Varieties of Cereals,” Biometrika, 15, 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. “Student” (. 1936 ). “Co-operation in Large Scale Experiments,” Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4, 115–136.Google Scholar
  12. “Student” (. 1937 ). “Comparison Between Balanced and Random Arrangements of Field Plots,” Biometrika, 29, 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tedin, O. (1931). “The Influence of Systematic Plot Arrangements Upon the Estimate of Error in Field Experiments,” Journal of Agricultural Science, 21, 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wood, T.B. and F.J.M. Stratton (1910). “The Interpretation of Experimental Results,” Journal of Agricultural Science, 3, 417–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Yates, F. (1939). “The Comparative Advantages of Systematic and Randomized Arrangements of Field Plots,” Biometrika, 30, 441–464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rick Picard

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations