HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bowman, D. T. Articles by Watson, C. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bowman, D. T. Articles by Watson, C. E. Agricola Articles by Bowman, D. T. Articles by Watson, C. E.

Measures of Validity in Cultivar Performance Trials

Crop Science Dep., North Carolina Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-8604
Exp. Statistics Unit, Mississippi State Univ., Box 9653, Mississippi State, MS 39762

^* Corresponding author (daryl_bowman{at}ncsu.edu).

The coefficient of variation (CV) has been used for many years by researchers to determine the validity of performance trials. The premise behind the CV, that the standard deviation is proportional to the mean, compromises one of the assumptions of a normal distribution (i.e., that the sample mean and sample variance are independent). If there is a nonnormal distribution, then the data may need to be transformed, which in turn may invalidate the use of the CV. A constant CV across trials implies a relationship between the error variance and the mean such that the slope = 2.0 in the regression of In error variance on in mean. The purpose of this paper is to stress the relationship between the error variance and mean in the CV, review this relationship in actual yield data, and examine the effects of various transformations on CVs and coefficient of determination (R²). The In error variance regressed on In mean for several agronomic crops ranged from –0.11 for full-season corn (Zea mays L.) to 1.31 for oat (Avena sativa L.). Although some crops had a nonzero regression coefficient for this relationship, none approached 2.0, the level that supports the hypothesis that the CV is a viable tool for comparing the relative variation of different trials. Data transformations (e.g., square root, logarithmic, angular, inverse, reverse, and addition of a constant) tend to lower CV values in most cases, but can cause dramatic increases, depending on the nature of the variance and the specific transformation. On the other hand, R², which is a measure of the amount of variability accounted for in the model, remains relatively unaffected by most transformations. Reasonable R² values for determining validity of performance trials may vary by location and crop species. Examination of North Carolina data revealed that discarded trials generally had R² values less than 50%. The R² may be affected by the size of the dataset, and so adjusted R² maybe more useful for comparing trials of varying sizes; however, adjusted R² will tend to be larger where there are larger differences among entries. There is no one perfect measure of the validity of trial data, but the R² and the adjusted R² are reasonable alternatives to the CV and should be examined along with other statistical measures when evaluating crop performance data.

Received for publication January 30, 1997.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Tang, R. Scarth, and P. B. E. McVetty Stability of the Expression of Acyl-ACP Thioesterase Transgenes in Oilseed Rape Doubled Haploid Lines Crop Sci., May 1, 2004; 44(3): 732 - 740. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]