首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
【2h】

Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test

机译:在两个样本的t检验和Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验中省略捆绑观察的案例

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations when the observations in the data are continuous. However, in practice, observations are discretized due various logical reasons, or the data are ordinal in nature. When ranks are tied, most textbooks recommend using mid-ranks to replace the tied ranks, a practice that affects the distribution of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test under the null hypothesis. Other methods for breaking ties have also been proposed. In this study, we examine four tie-breaking methods—average-scores, mid-ranks, jittering, and omission—for their effects on Type I and Type II error of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test and the two-sample t-test for various combinations of sample sizes, underlying population distributions, and percentages of tied observations. We use the results to determine the maximum percentage of ties for which the power and size are seriously affected, and for which method of tie-breaking results in the best Type I and Type II error properties. Not surprisingly, the underlying population distribution of the data has less of an effect on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test than on the t-test. Surprisingly, we find that the jittering and omission methods tend to hold Type I error at the nominal level, even for small sample sizes, with no substantial sacrifice in terms of Type II error. Furthermore, the t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test are equally effected by ties in terms of Type I and Type II error; therefore, we recommend omitting tied observations when they occur for both the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney due to the bias in Type I error that is created when tied observations are left in the data, in the case of the t-test, or adjusted using mid-ranks or average-scores, in the case of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney.
机译:当不满足t检验的分布假设时,许多分析师的默认位置是求助于基于等级的检验,例如Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验,以比较两个样本之间的均值差异。当数据中的观察是连续的时,Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验不会出现束缚观察的危险。但是,实际上,由于各种逻辑原因,观测值是离散的,或者数据本质上是有序的。当等级并列时,大多数教科书建议使用中间等级来代替并列等级,这种做法会影响零假设下的Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验的分布。还提出了其他打破联系的方法。在这项研究中,我们研究了四种平局决胜方法-平均得分,中位数秩,抖动和遗漏-对其对Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验的I型和II型误差以及两个样本的t-误差的影响。测试样本大小,潜在总体分布以及相关观察值的百分比的各种组合。我们使用这些结果来确定功率和尺寸受到严重影响的领带的最大百分比,以及确定哪种平局决胜的方法可获得最佳的I类和II类错误属性。毫不奇怪,数据的基本总体分布对Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验的影响小于对t检验的影响。出乎意料的是,我们发现抖动和遗漏方法倾向于将I型错误保持在名义水平上,即使对于小样本量,在II型错误方面也没有实质性的牺牲。此外,就I型和II型误差而言,t检验和Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney检验同样受联系影响。因此,我们建议在两个样本的t检验和Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney都出现时,由于在数据中保留捆绑观测值时会产生I型错误的偏差,因此建议省略捆绑观测值。 t检验,或者在Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney的情况下使用中位数或平均得分进行调整。

著录项

  • 期刊名称 other
  • 作者

    Monnie McGee;

  • 作者单位
  • 年(卷),期 -1(13),7
  • 年度 -1
  • 页码 e0200837
  • 总页数 19
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号