当前位置:首页 >> >> PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT VALIDATE THE ONE-SAMPLE STUDENT t

PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT VALIDATE THE ONE-SAMPLE STUDENT t


PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT VALIDATE THE ONE-SAMPLE STUDENT t

William R. Schucany and H. K. Tony Ng Department of Statistical Science Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas 75275-0332 schucany@mail.smu.edu Key Words: adaptive procedure, nonparametric, permutation, Monte Carlo simulation, pretest, robustness, Shapiro-Wilk. Running head: Preliminary Goodness-of-?t Tests. AMS Classi?cation: Primary 62F03; Secondary 62A01. ABSTRACT One of the most basic topics in many introductory statistical methods texts is inference for a population mean, ?. The primary tool for con?dence intervals and tests is the Student t sampling distribution. Although the derivation requires independent identically distributed normal random variables with constant variance, σ 2 , most authors reassure the readers about some robustness to the normality and constant variance assumptions. Some point out that if one is concerned about assumptions, one may statistically test these prior to reliance on the Student t. Most software packages provide optional test results for both (a) the Gaussian assumption and (b) homogeneity of variance. Many textbooks advise only informal graphical assessments, such as certain scatterplots for independence, others for constant variance, and normal quantile-quantile plots for the adequacy of the Gaussian model. We concur with this recommendation. As convincing evidence against formal tests of (a), such as the Shapiro-Wilk, we o?er a simulation study of the tails of the resulting conditional sampling distributions of the Studentized mean. We analyze the results of systematically screening all samples from normal, uniform, exponential, and Cauchy populations. This 1

pretest does not correct the erroneous signi?cance levels and makes matters worse for the exponential. In practice we conclude that graphical diagnostics are better than a formal pretest. Furthermore, rank or permutation methods are recommended for exact validity in the symmetric case. 1. INTRODUCTION Is it ever a good idea to test for normality before using a sample X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn to make inferences about a mean, ?, relying upon the Student t sampling distribution? Most software packages provide optional test results for (a) the Gaussian assumption (e.g. SAS, PROC UNIVARIATE) and (b) homogeneity of variance (e.g. SAS, PROC TTEST; SPSS, The Independent-Samples t Test procedure). Good textbooks on statistical methodology, e.g. Ramsey and Shafer (2002), argue against formal preliminary tests and favor informal graphical diagnostics. These applied statistics texts advise only graphical assessments, such as certain scatterplots for independence, others for constant variance, and normal quantilequantile plots for the adequacy of the Gaussian model. We support this recommendation with concrete evidence for the case that formal tests of (a), as recommended by Romeu (2003), are actually ?awed. In teaching beginning courses we ?nd it useful to address this basic point directly. For paired data and multiple samples the issues are di?erent. Suppose this random sample of size n is from a distribution F with population mean, ?. A statistical practice that is possible in many packages is to ?rst use a goodness-of-?t (GOF) test for normality, i.e.
? H0 : The true F is normal ? against H1 : F is not normal

(1)

at the level of signi?cance αg before making inference based on the t-statistic. If one does not
? reject H0 , one treats the sample as coming from a normal distribution and uses the Student

t-statistic T = ? 1 X ? ?0 ? √ , where X = s/ n n
n

Xi and s2 =
i=1

1 n?1

n

? (Xi ? X)2 ,
i=1

2

to test the hypothesis H0 : ? = ?0 against H1 : ? = ?0 (2)

at the level of signi?cance αt . In order to assess the adequacy of the preliminary GOF tests for normality, we compare the true Type-I error rate given that the sample passed this pretest, i.e.
? α = Pr(Reject H0 |do not reject H0 and H0 is true),

(3)

to the pre-speci?ed nominal Type-I error rate, αt . Thoughtful readers recognize a logical problem here. The nominal level, αt , requires that
? ? H0 be true but in (3) one is only given that H0 was not rejected. Consequently, hoping for

this two-stage procedure to work puts one in the ill-advised position of accepting a narrow null hypothesis. Strictly speaking, this null of normality is not simple, but it is one quite special family in the space of all continuous distributions.
2 2 On the parallel issue (b) of common variance, preliminary testing of σ1 = σ2 has a more

extensive literature. The Behrens-Fisher problem has been troublesome for decades. A fresh approach that does not pretest (b) is given by Sprott and Farewell (1993). Their position agrees well with ours that “a procedure, based on accepting the null hypothesis, seems logically ?awed.” They give a collection of con?dence intervals for a di?erence between two
2 2 means that adapt to the statistical evidence on the ratio σ2 /σ1 .

There is a sizable literature on GOF and much of it pertains to tests for normality or a few other speci?c families. There is a growing consensus that neither the chi-square (Moore, 1986, p.91) nor the Kolmogorov-Smirnov can be recommended due to the superiority of many others based on moments, probability plots, or other empirical distribution function (EDF) tests. Tukey (1993, p.31) stated that “The Kolmogoro?-Smirnov construction . . . is logically correct, but practically almost useless.” He cited Michael (1983) for a transformation better suited to the sup norm. For this reason we concentrate only on the Shapiro-Wilk statistic, W (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and the EDF Anderson-Darling statistic, A2 (Stephens, 1974) 3

for normality. See D’Agostino and Stephens (1986) for de?nitions, theory, and e?ciency comparisons in ?nite samples. Because we ?nd the results using these two pretests to be very similar, we only report those for W , which essentially tests for linearity in normal quantile-quantile plots. 2. A SIMULATION OF THE EFFECTS OF A PRELIMINARY TEST The algorithm for our Monte Carlo study follows. Step 1. Simulate a random sample of size n from a distribution F . Step 2. Use the Shapiro-Wilk statistic, W , to test for normality (1), at the level of signi?cance αg with the International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries (IMSL) function DSPWLK (Visual Numerics, Inc., 1994).
? Step 3. If H0 is not rejected in Step 2, treat the sample as coming from a normal distribution ? and use the t-test of the hypothesis (2) at the level of signi?cance αt. If H0 is rejected

in Step 2, then return to Step 1. In this simulation experiment we consider sample sizes n = 10, 20, 30, and 50; and the following underlying distributions F , (i) uniform (0, 1), ?0 = 0.5, (ii) standard exponential, ?0 = 1.0, (iii) Cauchy, median = 0.0, (iv) standard normal, ?0 = 0.0. There are four ?xed levels of signi?cance for the preliminary GOF test αg = 10%, 5%, 1%, and 0.5% and crossed with four levels of signi?cance for the t-test αt = 10%, 5%, 1%, and 0.5%. For each
? combination of n, αg , αt and F , we independently repeat Steps 1 through 3 until H0 is not

rejected M = 100, 000 times. Hence this inverse sampling yields 100,000 samples that have passed our normality screening. Then the Type-I error rate in (3) for the t-test is estimated by α= ? number of times H0 (2) is rejected . M (4)

Easterling and Anderson (1978) report a similar Monte Carlo study of n = 10, 20, αg = 10%, and M = 1000. They employ the chi-square (12 bins for deciles and 5th and 4

95th percentiles) to assess the resulting agreement with the entire Student t sampling distributions. We focus on the relevant feature of the quantiles for inference at four conventional levels, e.g. 90% con?dence. Our greater precision allows us to reach stronger conclusions. We also gain some valuable insight on the sensitivity to pretest levels down to αg = 0.5%. Even though the t-test is not justi?able for the Cauchy, it is useful to assess its performance. 3. RESULTS OF SCREENING OUT NONNORMAL SAMPLES Tables 1 - 5 in the Appendix summarize the Type-I error rates for four pretest levels αg and without any pretest, four conventional levels of signi?cance, αt , and four di?erent underlying distributions in our experiment. These Type-I error rates are estimated from 100,000 replications of the Student t-statistic. The standard errors (SE) at each of the nominal levels are at the head of each respective column. This ?nal power column has a maximum SE = 0.12% because of the negative binomial stopping rule to produce 100,000 acceptable samples. The number of simulated samples to produce 100,000 samples passing Shapiro-Wilk pretest can be obtained from this ?nal power column. For example in Table 3 (αg = 1%), when F is the exponential and n = 10, the simulated power of Shapiro-Wilk test is 23.4%, implying implies 100000/(1 - 0.234) = 130,548 samples to produce 100,000 passing the GOF pretest. When F is Gaussian, as one might hope, the preliminary GOF test does no harm whenever the data are truly normally distributed. When the underlying distributions are nonnormal, one might hope that the preliminary goodness-of-?t tests screen out the blatantly non-normal samples and correct the Type-I error rates for the t-test. However, our results show this not to be the case in general. To demonstrate the e?ect of the pretest on the Type-I error rate for the t-test, Figure 1 plot the independent estimates (4) for the t-test at αt = 5% after passing Shapiro-Wilk tests at αg = 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.5%, and also with no GOF test. Some interesting interactions are apparent. From Figure 1a, when F is Cauchy, we see that for sample sizes from 10 to 50 the GOF screens yield somewhat better results (simulated Type-I error rates closer to the nominal level) than applying the t-test without any pretest. For example, at n = 30 and αt = 5%, 5

the true Type-I error rate improved from 2.0% to 3.7% (SE =0.07%). However, the simulated Type-I error rates are still signi?cantly less than the nominal αt for every n is our study. The absence of any e?ect of n is consistent with the theory for the Cauchy. Multiple comparisons are protected at each n. The vertical bars at each plotting symbol are 95% family-wise Tukey-corrected intervals for the 10 pairwise di?erences among the ?ve rates. For displays of such intervals see Mason, Gunst and Hess (2003) Section 6.5. [Figure 1 about here] The genuinely noteworthy e?ect is that the pretest actually makes matters worse for both the uniform and the exponential. That is, for these two populations the true Type-I error rates are closer to the nominal αt when one uses the t-test on every sample, rather than selectively using only those samples with acceptable preliminary GOF statistics. From Figure 1b, when the underlying distribution is uniform, GOF tests at αg = 1% and 0.5% corrected the problem for small sample sizes (n = 10 and 20). However, for large sample sizes, the true Type-I error rates for the t-test without the GOF pretest are closer to the nominal αt . For example at n = 50 and αt = 5% the estimated Type-I error rates with preliminary GOF tests are around 4.2% to 4.4%, while the rate without any pretest is 5.0% (from Table 5, SE =0.07%). This can be explained by the rapid convergence to normality of the mean of samples from the symmetric short-tailed uniform distribution. The degradation of the conditional test is due to increasing power and corresponding greater selectivity for samples with relatively long tails. From Figure 1c when the underlying distribution is exponential, preliminary GOF tests not only do not help bring the conditional Type-I error rates closer to the nominal level, they actually makes matters worse than no pretest. This is especially so when the sample sizes are large. This is our “smoking gun” evidence. For example at n = 50 and αt = 5% the estimated Type-I error rate with preliminary goodness-of-?t tests at αg = 0.5% is 16.2% (from Table 4) while the estimated rate without is 6.5% (from Table 5, SE =0.07%). Somewhat surprisingly, when the sample size increases, the conditional Type-I error rates increase, getting further away from the nominal rate, αt . It appears to be quite detrimental to use the GOF test of

6

normality before applying the t-test, because they yield actual Type-I error rates that are much greater than the nominal level. The reason is subtle. What is being detected is a changing selection e?ect on the conditional mean value. Even though we are likely to detect these skewed distributions in large samples, for small n = 10 the αg = 5% level tests let about 56% of the samples be treated as normal. Graphical evidence that even Anderson-Darling pretests do no harm to the normal may be seen in Figure 2a. Using A2 at αg = 10% for n = 10 selects about 90% of normal samples with relatively light tails. Consequently, one might suspect a distortion of some features of the subsequent t(9) sampling distribution. There is no evidence of any such selection bias in Q-Q plots of 10,000 Student t with 9 degrees of freedom. On the other hand in Figure 2b, the disparity is quite obvious, when we subject the exponential to the same process. [Figure 2 about here] 4. OTHER VALID INFERENCE PROCEDURES In practice, reliable inference on means, when there is convincing evidence of nonnormality, takes two or more non-Student paths. The issues are di?erent for skewed and symmetric alternatives. Our symmetric nonnormals, the Cauchy and the uniform, represent relatively heavier- and lighter-tailed symmetric alternatives, respectively. For both of these, one might consider using the Wilcoxon signed-rank or a permutation distribution (Ernst, 2004) either (i) on the rejected samples or (ii) on all samples from the outset. We o?er a portion of a larger simulation study that strongly suggests that (ii) is the recommended strategy. Table 6 summarizes two analyses of M = 100, 000 samples of size n = 10 for only one nominal level αt = 5%. The empirical levels in the table for both distributions are subject to a simulation SE = .07%. In contrast to the approach in Section 3, we assess the Type-I error rates incurred by the adaptive procedure with the t-test on “accepted” samples and distribution-free procedures on the “rejected” ones. The two-sided Wilcoxon-signed rank is exact of size 4.88% (see Lehmann, 1998). The exact conditional permutation distribution has 210 = 1, 024 points. Thus, its true level can be closer to 5%. What is evident in Table 6 is that the validity of the t-test is not repaired for the Cauchy 7

and the uniform by resorting to either of these distribution-free tests on the signi?cantly non-normal samples. As we know, it does control Type-I error rates exactly to use either Wilcoxon or permutation tests on every sample with no pretesting. However, the net result of the two stages in (i) can be signi?cantly di?erent than the nominal level. For instance the Shapiro-Wilk at αg = 1% yields a combined level for the t/Wilcoxon of 4.52% (t/Permutation of 4.58%) for the Cauchy, which is detected about 48% of the time. These are signi?cantly less than 5% with exact binomial two-sided p-values < 10?9 . The corresponding results for the uniform, t/Wilcoxon of 5.42%, (t/Permutation of 5.48%) are signi?cantly greater with p-values < 10?9 . The e?ect of αg is in the anticipated direction. That is, larger αg yield greater power, which improves the approximation to αt . However, the important conclusion is that none of these two-stage procedures have the desired validity, which is present in the appropriate rank or permutation test with no pretest (option (ii)). On the other hand more re?ned adaptive tests can produce satisfactory increases in power for paired samples, see Freidlin, Miao and Gastwirth (2003). We analyzed these same procedures at n = 20, 30 and 50 as well as for other levels αt = .10, .01 and .005. The patterns were consistent with the ones for n = 10 and αt = 5%; although the e?ect of αg was less pronounced at n = 50 for the Cauchy, where the corresponding powers were .996, .993, .987, and .984. The proper handling of skewed alternatives is much more di?cult. If conditions are right for the lognormal, then the log transformation is ideal. However, other right-skewed families, such as exponential, gamma, Weibull, Gumbel, inverse Gaussian, and Pareto, are not perfectly symmetrized by the logs, reciprocals, or square roots, which tend to be used in practice. The fundamental problem comes from trying to make inference on the mean of any skewed distribution. When these are paired di?erences, symmetry is a natural result. When there are two independent samples, permutation tests permit inference on shift parameters without requiring normality or even symmetry. Therefore, the one-sample location problem

8

for skewed families is not as well posed as when ? is the center of symmetry. All of the other inferences about comparisons are reasonably well handled by permutation tests. We recommend that they be used in parallel with t-tools and not only whenever the sample appears to be nonnormal. 5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS There are some apparently counterintuitive results in Section 3. If one does any prelimi? nary test of H0 , it appears best to use a very small level, e.g., αg = 0.5%. This may seem to

refute many analysts’ experience with GOF tests, which have notoriously low power in small to moderate sample sizes. Hence, it may seem that one would argue for αg = 10% to have any chance of screening out the Cauchy or the exponential. Even though our intuition may be right about the power of these tests, it fails us whenever we imagine that the Student t approximation is conditionally better, when one rejects more of the exponential samples. This can be seen in Figure 1c that the exponential is best with no preliminary tests. The pretest’s selection e?ect on the conditional mean depends on both αg and n. Based on the results here, we recommend that one use formal GOF tests of normality before applying the t-test with great caution, especially when the underlying population distribution is suspected to be skewed. This precaution holds for any other tests like F tests, that are sensitive to nonnormality. When the sample size is reasonably large, say n ≥ 50, the central limit theorem supports the Student t approximation and any pretest is ill-advised. If one wishes to use the GOF test of normality, we suggest ?xing the level of signi?cance at a very low level, say αg = 0.1%. Diagnostic plots and tests should guide us to transform clearly nonnormal data. When nonnormality is blatant in such graphics, it may be a surrogate for p < .001 in a test. Obviously, the same conclusion holds for con?dence intervals. The inaccuracies that we demonstrate in each tail of the conditional sampling distributions have precisely the same e?ect on the coverage probabilities of one- or two-sided intervals for ?. Easterling (1976) described a simultaneous inferential procedure for both the distributional model and its parameters. In practice for the one-sample problem our recommendation is to use t-tests and intervals 9

along with permutation methods. As a standard part of the diagnostics, the next stage should include normal quantile-quantile or log density (Hazelton, 2003) plots. Whenever these (or GOF tests) have strong evidence of obvious nonnormality, one should rely on the tests and intervals from rank-based and permutation distributions or look for satisfactory transformations for improved inference on ?. This seems to be a better strategy over many data analyses, than one of screening all samples with a pretest for normality. We ?nd this point to be helpful for beginning students. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank Ian Harris and Lynne Stokes for their comments on a preliminary version of the paper. We greatly appreciate the issues raised by Pat Carmack, Mike Ernst, and Rob Easterling. BIBLIOGRAPHY D’Agostino, R. B. and Stephens, M. A. (Eds.) (1986). Goodness-of-Fit Techniques, Marcel Dekker: New York. Easterling, R. G. (1976). Goodness of Fit and Parameter Estimation, Technometrics, 18, 1-9. Easterling, R. G. and Anderson, H. E. (1978). The E?ect of Preliminary Normality Goodness of Fit Tests on Subsequent Inference, Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 8, 1-11. Ernst, M. D. (2004). Permutation Methods: A Basis for Exact Inference, Statistical Science, 19, 676-685. Freidlin, B., Miao, W. and Gastwirth, J. L. (2003). On the Use of the Shapiro-Wilk Test in Two-Stage Adaptive Inference for Paired Data from Moderate to Very Heavy Tailed Distributions. Biometrical Journal, 45, 887-900. Hazelton, M. L. (2003). A Graphical Tool for Assessing Normality, The American Statisti-

10

cian, 57, 285-288. Comment by Jones and reply, The American Statistician, 58, 176-177. Lehmann, E. L. (1998). Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks, 2nd edition, McGarw-Hill: New York, 1975. Mason, R. L., Gunst, R. F. and Hess, J. L. (2003). Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments With Applications to Engineering and Science, 2nd edition, Wiley: New York. Michael, J. R. (1983). The Stabilized Probability Plot, Biometrika, 70, 11-17. Moore, D. S. (1986). Tests of Chi-squared Type, in Goodness-of-Fit Techniques (R. B. D’Agostino and M. A. Stephens, eds.), pp. 63-96. Marcel Dekker: New York. Ramsey, F. L. and Shafer, D. W. (2002). The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis, 2nd edition, Duxbury Press. Romeu, J. L. (2003). Anderson-Darling: A Goodness of Fit Test for Small Samples Assumptions, Reliability Analysis Center, Selected Topics in Assurance Related Technologies, Volume 10, Number 5. Shapiro, S. S. and Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality, Biometrika, 52, 591-611. Sprott, D. A. and Farewell, V. T. (1993). The di?erence between two normal means, The American Statistician, 47, 126-128. Stephens, M. A. (1974). EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 730-737. Tukey, J. W. (1993). Graphic Comparisons of Several Linked Aspects: Alternatives and Suggested Principles (with discussion), Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2, 1-49. Visual Numerics, Inc. (1994). IMSL/LIBRARY: FORTRAN subroutines for statistical applications. Houston, Texas. 11

APPENDIX
Table 1. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) of the t-test after acceptable Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality with αg = 10% Underlying distribution Uniform n 10 20 30 50 Exponential 10 20 30 50 Cauchy 10 20 30 50 Normal 10 20 30 50 αt = 10 SE=0.10 8.8 8.5 8.2 8.8 19.6 22.9 25.7 29.8 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.0 10.1 10.0 10.1 10.1 αt = 5 SE=0.07 4.7 4.2 4.0 4.3 13.4 15.4 17.7 21.4 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 αt = 1 SE=0.03 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 6.5 7.2 8.2 10.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 αt = 0.5 SE=0.02 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 5.0 5.6 6.2 7.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Power of Shapiro-Wilk test 16.2 36.0 61.8 95.1 56.5 90.3 98.6 99.9 66.3 89.4 96.6 99.6 9.9 9.8 9.7 10.0

Table 2. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) of the t-test after acceptable Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality with αg = 5% Underlying distribution Uniform n 10 20 30 50 Exponential 10 20 30 50 Cauchy 10 20 30 50 Normal 10 20 30 50 αt = 10 SE=0.10 9.2 8.8 8.5 8.8 18.5 21.2 23.9 27.2 8.8 8.5 8.3 8.3 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.1 αt = 5 SE=0.07 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.2 12.7 14.0 16.2 19.3 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.8 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 αt = 1 SE=0.03 1.4 0.9 0.9 0.8 6.1 6.5 7.3 8.9 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 αt = 0.5 SE=0.02 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 4.6 4.9 5.5 6.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Power of Shapiro-Wilk test 7.5 20.4 42.8 88.1 44.3 83.5 96.8 99.9 60.1 86.4 95.3 99.4 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1

12

Table 3. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) of the t-test after acceptable Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality with αg = 1% Underlying distribution Uniform n 10 20 30 50 Exponential 10 20 30 50 Cauchy 10 20 30 50 Normal 10 20 30 50 αt = 10 SE=0.10 10.0 9.6 9.3 8.8 16.7 18.2 20.6 24.7 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.0 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.1 αt = 5 SE=0.07 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.2 11.5 11.7 13.4 17.0 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.6 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 αt = 1 SE=0.03 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.8 5.4 5.2 5.7 7.7 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 αt = 0.5 SE=0.02 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 4.0 3.9 4.2 5.4 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Power of Shapiro-Wilk test 1.0 3.5 12.2 59.6 23.4 64.0 88.5 99.7 48.1 79.5 92.0 98.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.1

Table 4. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) of the t-test after acceptable Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality with αg = 0.5% Underlying distribution Uniform n 10 20 30 50 Exponential 10 20 30 50 Cauchy 10 20 30 50 Normal 10 20 30 50 αt = 10 SE=0.10 10.1 9.8 9.6 9.0 16.2 17.3 19.5 23.9 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.0 10.2 10.0 10.0 10.1 αt = 5 SE=0.07 5.4 5.0 4.9 4.4 11.1 11.1 12.5 16.2 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.6 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 αt = 1 SE=0.03 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.8 5.1 4.9 5.3 7.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 αt = 0.5 SE=0.02 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 3.8 3.7 3.9 5.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Power of Shapiro-Wilk test 0.4 1.4 6.0 45.4 17.4 55.1 83.1 99.3 43.6 76.5 90.4 98.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6

13

Table 5. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) of the t-test without pretest Underlying distribution Uniform n 10 20 30 50 Exponential 10 20 30 50 Cauchy 10 20 30 50 Normal 10 20 30 50 αt = 10 SE=0.10 10.3 10.0 10.0 10.1 14.8 13.0 12.2 11.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.2 10.1 10.0 10.0 10.0 αt = 5 SE=0.07 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.0 10.0 8.2 7.5 6.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 αt = 1 SE=0.03 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.0 4.6 3.5 2.9 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 αt = 0.5 SE=0.02 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 3.4 2.5 2.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

14

Table 6. Simulated Type-I error rates (in %) for several inference procedures with 5% nominal levels at n = 10 Without preliminary test Procedure Student t Wilcoxon
??

Cauchy 1.99 4.96 5.01 With preliminary test

Uniform 5.50 4.96 5.07

Permutation

αg = 10%

Power = 66.4% t/Wilcoxon t/Permutation 1.30 3.62 4.92

Power = 16.1% t/Wilcoxon 3.94 1.29 5.23 t/Permutation 3.94 1.39 5.33

? H0

is not rejected

1.30 3.56 4.86

? H0 is rejected

Combined αg = 5%

Power = 60.1% t/Wilcoxon t/Permutation 1.54 3.32 4.86

Power = 7.5% t/Wilcoxon 4.53 0.78 5.31 t/Permutation 4.53 0.86 5.39

? H0 is not rejected ? H0

1.54 3.26 4.80

is rejected

Combined αg = 1%

Power = 48.1% t/Wilcoxon t/Permutation 1.82 2.76 4.58

Power = 1.0% t/Wilcoxon 5.21 0.21 5.42 t/Permutation 5.21 0.26 5.47

? H0 is not rejected ? H0 is rejected

1.82 2.70 4.52

Combined αg = .5%

Power = 43.6% t/Wilcoxon t/Permutation 1.90 2.51 4.42

Power = .39% t/Wilcoxon 5.34 0.10 5.44 t/Permutation 5.34 0.14 5.48

? H0

is not rejected

1.90 2.45 4.35
??

? H0 is rejected

Combined

- exact type-I error rate = 4.88%

15

(a) Cauchy distribution
5.0 4.5 Estimated Type-I error rates (in %) of t-test

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5 n=10 n=20 Sample Size n=30 n=50

(b) Uniform distribution
6.0

(c) Exponential distribution
23.0 22.0 21.0

5.5

Estimated Type-I error rates (in %) of t-test
n=10 n=20 Sample Size n=30 n=50

20.0 19.0 18.0 17.0 16.0 15.0 14.0 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0

Estimated Type-I error rates (in %) of t-test

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

5.0 n=10 n=20 Sample Size n=30 n=50

Figure 1. Conditional Type-I error rates (in %) of t-test for αt = 5% at different αg (―?― αg = 10%, ―■― αg = 5%, ―▲― αg = 1%, ― × ― αg = 0.5%,―○― without GOF test), the underlying distribution is (a) Cauchy, (b) uniform and (c) exponential. (a) Normal distribution
8 6 8 6

(b) Exponential distribution

4 2

4 2

Expected Student t(9) Value

0

Expected Student t Value
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

0

-2 -4

-2 -4

-6 -8

-6 -8 -30 -20 -10 0 10

Observed Value

Observed Value

Figure 2. Student t(9) Q-Q plot of 10,000 simulated samples of size n = 10 passing the Anderson-Darling GOF pretest at αg=10% when the underlying distribution is (a) normal and (b) exponential. 16


更多相关文档:

PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT ....unkown

PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT VALIDATE THE ONE-SAMPLE STUDENT t William R. Schucany and H. K. Tony Ng Department of ...

6 sigma 六西格码培训材料_图文.ppt

Goodness Of Fit Tests (Normality ...) State Of...An out-of-control condition does not necessarily ...Samp le # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 To ...

UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL.unkown

Preliminary Analysis of the Data In order to ...Not Included Irrg Yes No Serrop Yes No HHsex... Goodness of fit tests The goodness of fit ...

...BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION USING A PRELIMINARY TEST OF ....unkown

ESTIMATING ONE MAN OF A BIVARIATE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION USING A PRELIMINARY TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE AND A TWO STAGE SAMPLING SCHEME By D. R. Brogan and J. ...

...does not Express Prostate-Specific Antigen. Preliminary ....unkown

(1962) Metastasmg benign trophoblastic tumors Amer J Obstet Gynecol 84, 1395 The Normal Female and the Male Breast Epithelium does not Express Prostate-...

To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality ....unkown

test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality when comparing two... violation of distributional assumptions has been identified as one of the ...

...OF A PRELIMINARY TEST ESTIMATOR FOR THE MEAN OF NORMAL ....unkown

Math. 37 (1985), Part A, 437-442 MINIMAXITY OF A PRELIMINARY TEST ESTIMATOR FOR THE MEAN OF NORMAL DISTRIBUTION YASUSHI NAGATA AND TAICHI INABA (...

...on neuropsychological tests? Preliminary findings on the ....unkown

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 22 (2007) 273282 Do Russian and American normal adults perform similarly on neuropsychological tests? Preliminary findings...

To test or not to test: Preliminary assessment of normality ....unkown

University of Copenhagen To test or not to test Rochon, Justine; Gondan,...(Strategy II) had passed the preliminary Shapiro-Wilk test for normality; ...

ON PRELIMINARY TEST VERSIONS AND THE STEIN-RULE ESTIMATORS OF....unkown

ON PRELIMINARY TEST VERSIONS AND THE STEIN-RULE ESTIMATORS OF THE ... the error variances 2 01 ""'Ok2 are not known and may not be all ...

The preliminary statistics are proceeded to test the ....unkown

5.1 Preliminary data analysis The preliminary ...(JB) test of normality ADVANC ATC BBL BECL ...1, it can be seen that the values of JB s ...

2006-04-08T00:48:00Z LastModifiedTime.unkown

A preliminary random sample of 60 faculty yields ...does not differ from the true mean by more ...TI-83 function 2-SampZInt (STAT / TESTS / 9...

...SOME PRELIMINARY TEST ESTIMATORS FOR THE MEAN OF NORMAL ....unkown

PRELIMINARY TEST ESTIMATORS FOR THE MEAN OF NORMAL...Preliminary test estimation should not be understood...appropriate loss function which fits such a ...

ON PRELIMINARY TEST VERSIONS AND THE STEIN-RULE ESTIMATORS OF....unkown

ON PRELIMINARY TEST VERSIONS AND THE STEIN-RULE ESTIMATORS OF THE COMMON ...( > 1); the error of ,...,o:variances are not known and may not ...

...Properties of Polynomials without Factoring (Preliminary ....pdf

Deciding Properties of Polynomials without Factoring (Preliminary Version) - Abstract. The polyno...... Factoring (Preliminary Version) Tomas Sander and M... ...

NON-OPTIMALITY OF PRELIMINARY-TEST ESTIMATORS FOR THE MEAN OF....unkown

It is shown that although there are parameter values for which the risk of a preliminary-test estimator is less than that of the usual estimator, there...

Preliminary Test Confidence Sets for the Mean of a ....unkown

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259198528 Preliminary Test Confidence Sets for ...

Non-Optimality of Preliminary- Test Estimators for the Mean ....unkown

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/38363909 Non-Optimality of Preliminary- Test ...

Preliminary Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Normality do not ....unkown

//www.researchgate.net/publication/228562168 Preliminary Goodness-of-Fit Tests for Normality do not Validate the One-Sample Student t ARTICLE in ...

PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT ....unkown

PRELIMINARY GOODNESS-OF-FIT TESTS FOR NORMALITY DO NOT VALIDATE THE ONE-SAMPLE STUDENT t William R. Schucany and H. K. Tony Ng Department of ...

更多相关标签:
网站地图

文档资料共享网 nexoncn.com copyright ©right 2010-2020。
文档资料共享网内容来自网络,如有侵犯请联系客服。email:zhit325@126.com