Randomization and Design: II
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.
KeywordsRoyal Statistical Society Large Scale Experiment Balance Design Fertility Trend Balance Arrangement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Russell, J. (1926). “Field Experiments: How They Are Made and What They Are,” Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, 32, 989–1001.Google Scholar
- “Student” (. 1936 ). “Co-operation in Large Scale Experiments,” Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4, 115–136.Google Scholar
- Yates, F. (1939). “The Comparative Advantages of Systematic and Randomized Arrangements of Field Plots,” Biometrika, 30, 441–464.Google Scholar