Loading…
Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations
When the assumptions of parametric statistical tests for the difference between two means are violated, it is commonly advised that non-parametric tests are a more robust substitute. The history of the investigation of this issue is summarized. The robustness of the t -test was evaluated, by repeate...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of applied statistics 1998-02, Vol.25 (1), p.63-74 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193 |
container_end_page | 74 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 63 |
container_title | Journal of applied statistics |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Stonehouse, John M. Forrester, Guy J. |
description | When the assumptions of parametric statistical tests for the difference between two means are violated, it is commonly advised that non-parametric tests are a more robust substitute. The history of the investigation of this issue is summarized. The robustness of the t -test was evaluated, by repeated computer testing for differences between samples from two populations of equal means but non-normal distributions and with different variances and sample sizes. Two common alternatives to t -Welch's approximate t and the Mann-Whitney U -test-were evaluated in the same way. The t -test is sufficiently robust for use in all likely cases, except when skew is severe or when population variances and sample sizes both differ. The Welch test satisfactorily addressed the latter problem, but was itself sensitive to departures from normality. Contrary to its popular reputation, the U -test showed a dramatic 'lack of robustness' in many cases-largely because it is sensitive to population differences other than between means, so it is not properly a 'non-parametric analogue' of the t -test, as it is too often described. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02664769823304 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02664769823304</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>28603695</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUE1LxDAQDaLgunr1HLxX89GmyVHWjxUWBHHPIWkTtsu2qUm6uv_elIqwB_HwZh7Me2-GAeAao1uMOLpDhLG8ZIITSlF-AmaYMpShgpJTMBuHWZrSc3ARwhYhxHFBZ-DhzekhxM6EAJ2FcWNghKqr4RpGE2KAQ1cbDyvX6qYzNVQhDG0fG9fBfeN2amThEpxZtQvm6qfPwfrp8X2xzFavzy-L-1VW5SSPWVXkmuZEmKJkRmlSCsY4Z8SWVNSaM62pKFRhalwQJbRV3GhsSSWQ0LXCgs7BzZTbe_cxpPPk1g2-SyslwbQUtCQ8iW4nUeVdCN5Y2fumVf4gMZLjo-Txo5JhORm86U31q47KblUfopJ7SRUpUjkkYCF4as1IE_oERmWZy01sU5SYoprOOt-qT-d3dUo67Jy3XnVVEyT984z8X--xRcavSL8BxN-XZg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>213793728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations</title><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>ABI/INFORM global</source><source>Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection</source><creator>Stonehouse, John M. ; Forrester, Guy J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Stonehouse, John M. ; Forrester, Guy J.</creatorcontrib><description>When the assumptions of parametric statistical tests for the difference between two means are violated, it is commonly advised that non-parametric tests are a more robust substitute. The history of the investigation of this issue is summarized. The robustness of the t -test was evaluated, by repeated computer testing for differences between samples from two populations of equal means but non-normal distributions and with different variances and sample sizes. Two common alternatives to t -Welch's approximate t and the Mann-Whitney U -test-were evaluated in the same way. The t -test is sufficiently robust for use in all likely cases, except when skew is severe or when population variances and sample sizes both differ. The Welch test satisfactorily addressed the latter problem, but was itself sensitive to departures from normality. Contrary to its popular reputation, the U -test showed a dramatic 'lack of robustness' in many cases-largely because it is sensitive to population differences other than between means, so it is not properly a 'non-parametric analogue' of the t -test, as it is too often described.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0266-4763</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1360-0532</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02664769823304</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group</publisher><subject>Hypotheses ; Normal distribution ; Population ; Sample size ; Standard deviation ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied statistics, 1998-02, Vol.25 (1), p.63-74</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 1998</rights><rights>Copyright Carfax Publishing Company Feb 1998</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/213793728/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/213793728?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,11667,27901,27902,36037,44339,74638</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafjapsta/v_3a25_3ay_3a1998_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a63-74.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stonehouse, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forrester, Guy J.</creatorcontrib><title>Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations</title><title>Journal of applied statistics</title><description>When the assumptions of parametric statistical tests for the difference between two means are violated, it is commonly advised that non-parametric tests are a more robust substitute. The history of the investigation of this issue is summarized. The robustness of the t -test was evaluated, by repeated computer testing for differences between samples from two populations of equal means but non-normal distributions and with different variances and sample sizes. Two common alternatives to t -Welch's approximate t and the Mann-Whitney U -test-were evaluated in the same way. The t -test is sufficiently robust for use in all likely cases, except when skew is severe or when population variances and sample sizes both differ. The Welch test satisfactorily addressed the latter problem, but was itself sensitive to departures from normality. Contrary to its popular reputation, the U -test showed a dramatic 'lack of robustness' in many cases-largely because it is sensitive to population differences other than between means, so it is not properly a 'non-parametric analogue' of the t -test, as it is too often described.</description><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Normal distribution</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Sample size</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><issn>0266-4763</issn><issn>1360-0532</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUE1LxDAQDaLgunr1HLxX89GmyVHWjxUWBHHPIWkTtsu2qUm6uv_elIqwB_HwZh7Me2-GAeAao1uMOLpDhLG8ZIITSlF-AmaYMpShgpJTMBuHWZrSc3ARwhYhxHFBZ-DhzekhxM6EAJ2FcWNghKqr4RpGE2KAQ1cbDyvX6qYzNVQhDG0fG9fBfeN2amThEpxZtQvm6qfPwfrp8X2xzFavzy-L-1VW5SSPWVXkmuZEmKJkRmlSCsY4Z8SWVNSaM62pKFRhalwQJbRV3GhsSSWQ0LXCgs7BzZTbe_cxpPPk1g2-SyslwbQUtCQ8iW4nUeVdCN5Y2fumVf4gMZLjo-Txo5JhORm86U31q47KblUfopJ7SRUpUjkkYCF4as1IE_oERmWZy01sU5SYoprOOt-qT-d3dUo67Jy3XnVVEyT984z8X--xRcavSL8BxN-XZg</recordid><startdate>19980201</startdate><enddate>19980201</enddate><creator>Stonehouse, John M.</creator><creator>Forrester, Guy J.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><general>Taylor and Francis Journals</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AL</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19980201</creationdate><title>Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations</title><author>Stonehouse, John M. ; Forrester, Guy J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Normal distribution</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Sample size</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stonehouse, John M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forrester, Guy J.</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Computing Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest advanced technologies & aerospace journals</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied statistics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stonehouse, John M.</au><au>Forrester, Guy J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied statistics</jtitle><date>1998-02-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>63</spage><epage>74</epage><pages>63-74</pages><issn>0266-4763</issn><eissn>1360-0532</eissn><abstract>When the assumptions of parametric statistical tests for the difference between two means are violated, it is commonly advised that non-parametric tests are a more robust substitute. The history of the investigation of this issue is summarized. The robustness of the t -test was evaluated, by repeated computer testing for differences between samples from two populations of equal means but non-normal distributions and with different variances and sample sizes. Two common alternatives to t -Welch's approximate t and the Mann-Whitney U -test-were evaluated in the same way. The t -test is sufficiently robust for use in all likely cases, except when skew is severe or when population variances and sample sizes both differ. The Welch test satisfactorily addressed the latter problem, but was itself sensitive to departures from normality. Contrary to its popular reputation, the U -test showed a dramatic 'lack of robustness' in many cases-largely because it is sensitive to population differences other than between means, so it is not properly a 'non-parametric analogue' of the t -test, as it is too often described.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/02664769823304</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0266-4763 |
ispartof | Journal of applied statistics, 1998-02, Vol.25 (1), p.63-74 |
issn | 0266-4763 1360-0532 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02664769823304 |
source | Business Source Ultimate; ABI/INFORM global; Taylor and Francis Science and Technology Collection |
subjects | Hypotheses Normal distribution Population Sample size Standard deviation Statistical analysis Statistical methods |
title | Robustness of the t and U tests under combined assumption violations |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-10T12%3A51%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Robustness%20of%20the%20t%20and%20U%20tests%20under%20combined%20assumption%20violations&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20statistics&rft.au=Stonehouse,%20John%20M.&rft.date=1998-02-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.epage=74&rft.pages=63-74&rft.issn=0266-4763&rft.eissn=1360-0532&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02664769823304&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E28603695%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c424t-c54b3429e576eab279668862f739db86bb395a5ed152a9bfa8eb1f2c909bda193%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=213793728&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |