Bootstrap methods for multivariate hypothesis testing

The nonparametric and parametric bootstrap methods for multivariate hypothesis testing are developed. They are used to approximate the null distribution of the test statistics proposed by Duchesne and Francq (2015 Duchesne, P., Francq, C. (2015). Multivariate hypothesis testing using generalized and {2}-inverses—with applications. Statistics 49:475–496.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]), resulting in bootstrap testing procedures. In the problem of testing for the mean vector of a multivariate distribution, the asymptotic validity of the bootstrap methods is proved. The finite sample performance of the new solutions is demonstrated by means of Monte Carlo simulation studies. They indicate that for small-sample size, the bootstrap tests provide a better finite sample properties than the asymptotic tests considered by Duchesne and Francq (2015 Duchesne, P., Francq, C. (2015). Multivariate hypothesis testing using generalized and {2}-inverses—with applications. Statistics 49:475–496.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).     

Permutation tests of scale using deviances

Robust tests for comparing scale parameters, based on deviances—absolute deviations from the median—are examined. Higgins (2004) proposed a permutation test for comparing two treatments based on the ratio of deviances, but the performance of this procedure has not been investigated. A simulation study examines the performance of Higgins’ test relative to other tests of scale utilizing deviances that have been shown in the literature to have good properties. An extension of Higgins’ procedure to three or more treatments is proposed, and a second simulation study compares its performance to other omnibus tests for comparing scale. While no procedure emerged as a preferred choice in every scenario, Higgins’ tests are found to perform well overall with respect to Type I error rate and power.     

Robust inference for group sequential trials

For ethical reasons, group sequential trials were introduced to allow trials to stop early in the event of extreme results. Endpoints in such trials are usually mortality or irreversible morbidity. For a given endpoint, the norm is to use a single test statistic and to use that same statistic for each analysis. This approach is risky because the test statistic has to be specified before the study is unblinded, and there is loss in power if the assumptions that ensure optimality for each analysis are not met. To minimize the risk of moderate to substantial loss in power due to a suboptimal choice of a statistic, a robust method was developed for nonsequential trials. The concept is analogous to diversification of financial investments to minimize risk. The method is based on combining P values from multiple test statistics for formal inference while controlling the type I error rate at its designated value.This article evaluates the performance of 2 P value combining methods for group sequential trials. The emphasis is on time to event trials although results from less complex trials are also included. The gain or loss in power with the combination method relative to a single statistic is asymmetric in its favor. Depending on the power of each individual test, the combination method can give more power than any single test or give power that is closer to the test with the most power. The versatility of the method is that it can combine P values from different test statistics for analysis at different times. The robustness of results suggests that inference from group sequential trials can be strengthened with the use of combined tests.     

Testing variance components in balanced linear growth curve models

It is well known that the testing of zero variance components is a non-standard problem since the null hypothesis is on the boundary of the parameter space. The usual asymptotic chi-square distribution of the likelihood ratio and score statistics under the null does not necessarily hold because of this null hypothesis. To circumvent this difficulty in balanced linear growth curve models, we introduce an appropriate test statistic and suggest a permutation procedure to approximate its finite-sample distribution. The proposed test alleviates the necessity of any distributional assumptions for the random effects and errors and can easily be applied for testing multiple variance components. Our simulation studies show that the proposed test has Type I error rate close to the nominal level. The power of the proposed test is also compared with the likelihood ratio test in the simulations. An application on data from an orthodontic study is presented and discussed.     

Testing for linearity in generalized linear models using kernel smoothing

A test statistic proposed by Li (1999) for testing the adequacy of heteroscedastic nonlinear regression models using nonparametric kernel smoothers is applied to testing for linearity in generalized linear models. Simulation results for models with centered gamma and inverse Gaussian errors are presented to illustrate the performance of the resulting test compared with log-likelihood ratio tests for specific parametric alternatives. The test is applied to a data set of coronary heart disease status (Hosmer and Lemeshow, (1990).     

Two non parametric methods for change-point detection in distribution

The change-point detection problem is determining whether a change has taken place. Two non parametric methods based on empirical likelihood and the likelihood ratio are proposed for detecting a change-point problem in distributions for independent observations. Numerical studies are carried out to evaluate the performance of the proposed methods. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed methods are robust, that is, they perform well regardless of whether the observations are from the same distribution family.     

A goodness of fit test for multilevel survival data

No satisfactory goodness of fit test is available for multilevel survival data which occur when survival data are clustered or hierarchical in nature. Hence the aim of this research is to develop a new goodness of fit test for multilevel survival data and to examine the properties of the newly developed test. Simulation studies were carried out to evaluate the type ? error and the power. The results showed that the type I error holds for every combination tested and that the test is powerful against the alternative hypothesis of nonproportional hazards for all combinations tested.     

A Mann–Whitney type effect measure of interaction for factorial designs

We propose a measure for interaction for factorial designs that is formulated in terms of a probability similar to the effect size of the Mann–Whitney test. It is shown how asymptotic confidence intervals can be obtained for the effect size and how a statistical test can be constructed. We further show how the test is related to the test proposed by Bhapkar and Gore [Sankhya A, 36:261–272 (1974)]. The results of a simulation study indicate that the test has good power properties and illustrate when the asymptotic approximations are adequate. The effect size is demonstrated on an example dataset.     

Tests for compound periodicities and estimating a non linear function

We propose two tests for testing compound periodicities which are the uniformly most powerful invariant decision procedures against simple periodicities. The second test can provide an excellent estimation of a compound periodic non linear function from observed data. These tests were compared with the tests proposed by Fisher and Siegel by Monte Carlo studies and we found that all the tests showed high power and high probability of a correct decision when all the amplitudes of underlying periods were the same. However, if there are at least several different periods with unequal amplitudes, then the second test proposed always showed high power and high probability of a correct decision, whereas the tests proposed by Fisher and Siegel gave 0 for the power and 0 for the probability of a correct decision, whatever the standard deviation of pseudo normal random numbers. Overall, the second test proposed is the best of all in view of the probability of a correct decision and power.