Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is a statistical procedure commonly used in fields such as education and psychology. However, MANOVA’s popularity may actually be for the wrong reasons. The large majority of published research using MANOVA focus on univariate research questions rather than on the multivariate questions that MANOVA is said to specifically address. Given the more complicated and limited nature of interpreting MANOVA effects (which researchers may not actually be interested in given the actual post hoc strategies employed) and that various flexible and well-known statistical alternatives are available, I suggest that researchers consult these better known, robust, and flexible procedures instead, given the proper match with the research question of interest. Just because a researcher has multiple dependent variables of interest does not mean that a MANOVA should be used at all.
AdelsonJ. L. (2012). Examining relationships and effects in gifted education research: An introduction to structural equation modeling. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 47-55.
2.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Statistical Methodology), 57, 289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
3.
ColeD. A.MaxwellS. E.ArveyR.SalasE. (1993). Multivariate group comparisons of variable systems: MANOVA and structural equation modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 174-184. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.174
EndersC. K. (2003). Performing multivariate group comparisons following a statistically significant MANOVA. Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 36, 40-56.
6.
EverittB.HothornT. (2011). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.
7.
FanX.WangL. (1999). Comparing linear discriminant function with logistic regression for the two-group classification problem. Journal of Experimental Education, 67, 265-286. doi:10.1080/00220979909598356
8.
FinchW. H. (2007). Performance of the Roy-Bargmann stepdown procedure as a follow up to a significant MANOVA. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 33, 12-22.
9.
FriendlyM.SigalM. (2018). Visualizing tests for equality of covariance matrices. American Statistician, 1-12. doi:10.1080/00031305.2018.1497537
10.
GriceJ. W.IwasakiM. (2007). A truly multivariate approach to MANOVA. Applied Multivariate Research, 12, 199-226. doi:10.22329/amr.v12i3.660
11.
HaaseR. F.EllisM. V. (1987). Multivariate analysis of variance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 404-413. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.404
12.
Hahs-VaughnD. L. (2016). Applied multivariate statistical concepts. New York, NY: Routledge.
13.
HairJ.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
HuangF. (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 175-196. doi:10.1080/00220973.2014.952397
16.
HubertyC. J.MorrisJ. D. (1989). Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 302-308. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.302
17.
HubertyC. J.OlejnikS. (2006). Applied MANOVA and discriminant analysis (Vol. 498). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
KeselmanH. J.HubertyC. J.LixL. M.OlejnikS.CribbieR. A.DonahueB.. . . KeselmanJ. C. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68, 350-386. doi:10.3102/00346543068003350
20.
LukeD. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
PituchK. A.StevensJ. P. (2015). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
PuryearJ. S.KettlerT. (2017). Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61, 143-152. doi:10.1177/0016986217690229
23.
SchusterC.LubbeD. (2015). MANOVA versus mixed models: Comparing approaches to modeling within-subject dependence. In StemmlerM.von EyeA.WiedermannW. (Eds.), Dependent data in social sciences research (Vol. 145, pp. 369-385). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.
24.
SingerJ. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 323-355. doi:10.2307/1165280
25.
SingerJ. D.WillettJ. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26.
SmithK.LambK.HensonR. (2020). Making meaning out of MANOVA: Using descriptive discriminant analysis for multivariate post hoc testing in gifted education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(1), 41-55.
27.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
28.
TonidandelS.LeBretonJ. M. (2013). Beyond step-down analysis: A new test for decomposing the importance of dependent variables in MANOVA. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 469-477. doi:10.1037/a0032001
29.
WarneR. T. (2014). A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19. Retrieved from https://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=17
30.
WarneR. T.LazoM.RamosT.RitterN. (2012). Statistical methods used in gifted education journals, 2006-2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 134-149. doi:10.1177/0016986212444122
31.
ZientekL. R.ThompsonB. (2009). Matrix summaries improve research reports: Secondary analyses using published literature. Educational Researcher, 38, 343-352. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339056
