A new computational approach test for one-way ANOVA under heteroscedasticity

This paper proposes a new test statistic based on the computational approach test (CAT) for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) under heteroscedasticity. The proposed test was compared with other popular tests according to type I error and power of tests under different combinations of variances, means, number of groups and sample sizes. As a result, it was observed that the proposed test yields better results than other tests in many cases.     

A non-parametric maximum test for the Behrens–Fisher problem

Non-normality and heteroscedasticity are common in applications. For the comparison of two samples in the non-parametric Behrens–Fisher problem, different tests have been proposed, but no single test can be recommended for all situations. Here, we propose combining two tests, the Welch t test based on ranks and the Brunner–Munzel test, within a maximum test. Simulation studies indicate that this maximum test, performed as a permutation test, controls the type I error rate and stabilizes the power. That is, it has good power characteristics for a variety of distributions, and also for unbalanced sample sizes. Compared to the single tests, the maximum test shows acceptable type I error control.     

A power study of goodness-of-fit tests for multivariate normality implemented in R

Multivariate statistical analysis procedures often require data to be multivariate normally distributed. Many tests have been developed to verify if a sample could indeed have come from a normally distributed population. These tests do not all share the same sensitivity for detecting departures from normality, and thus a choice of test is of central importance. This study investigates through simulated data the power of those tests for multivariate normality implemented in the statistic software R and pits them against the variant of testing each marginal distribution for normality. The results of testing two-dimensional data at a level of significance α=5% showed that almost one-third of those tests implemented in R do not have a type I error below this. Other tests outperformed the naive variant in terms of power even when the marginals were not normally distributed. Even though no test was consistently better than all alternatives with every alternative distribution, the energy-statistic test always showed relatively good power across all tested sample sizes.     

Performance of nonparametric multiple comparison tests under heteroscedasticity,dependency, and skewed error distribution

In this article, an extensive Monte Carlo simulation study is conducted to evaluate and compare nonparametric multiple comparison tests under violations of classical analysis of variance assumptions. Simulation space of the Monte Carlo study is composed of 288 different combinations of balanced and unbalanced sample sizes, number of groups, treatment effects, various levels of heterogeneity of variances, dependence between subgroup levels, and skewed error distributions under the single factor experimental design. By this large simulation space, we present a detailed analysis of effects of the violations of assumptions on the performance of nonparametric multiple comparison tests in terms of three error and four power measures. Observations of this study are beneficial to decide the optimal nonparametric test according to requirements and conditions of undertaken experiments. When some of the assumptions of analysis of variance are violated and number of groups is small, use of stepwise Steel-Dwass procedure with Holm's approach is appropriate to control type I error at a desired level. Dunn's method should be employed for greater number of groups. When subgroups are unbalanced and number of groups is small, Nemenyi's procedure with Duncan's approach produces high power values. Conover's procedure successfully provides high power values with a small number of unbalanced groups or with a greater number of balanced or unbalanced groups. At the same time, Conover's procedure is unable to control type I error rates.     

The two-stage δ-corrected Kolmogorov-Smirnov test

The delta-corrected Kolmogorov-Smirnov test has been shown to be uniformly more powerful than the classical Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for small to moderate sample sizes. However, the delta-corrected test consists of two tests, leading to a slight inflation of the experimentwise type I error rate. The critical values of the delta-corrected test are adjusted to take into account the two-stage nature of the test, ensuring an experimentwise error rate at the nominal level. A power study confirms that the resulting so-called two-stage delta-corrected test is uniformly more powerful than the classical Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, with power improvements of up to 46 percentage points.     

A note on the nonparametric test based on theL 1-version of the Cramér-von Mises statistic

We consider the test based on theL ₁-version of the Cramér-von Mises statistic for the nonparametric two-sample problem. Some quantiles of the exact distribution under H₀ of the test statistic are computed for small sample sizes. We compare the test in terms of power against general alternatives to other two-sample tests, namely the Wilcoxon rank sum test, the Smirnov test and the Cramér-von Mises test in the case of unbalanced small sample sizes. The computation of the power is rather complicated when the sample sizes are unequal. Using Monte Carlo power estimates it turns out that the Smirnov test is more sensitive to non stochastically ordered alternatives than the new test. And under location-contamination alternatives the power estimates of the new test and of the competing tests are equal.     

The Size and Power of Bootstrap and Bartlett-Corrected Tests of Hypotheses on the Cointegrating Vectors

In this paper we compare Bartlett-corrected, bootstrap, and fast double bootstrap tests on maximum likelihood estimates of cointegration parameters. The key result is that both the bootstrap and the Bartlett-corrected tests must be based on the unrestricted estimates of the cointegrating vectors: procedures based on the restricted estimates have almost no power. The small sample size bias of the asymptotic test appears so severe as to advise strongly against its use with the sample sizes commonly available; the fast double bootstrap test minimizes size bias, while the Bartlett-corrected test is somehow more powerful.     

Multivariate extension of chi-squared univariate normality test

We propose a multivariate extension of the univariate chi-squared normality test. Using a known result for the distribution of quadratic forms in normal variables, we show that the proposed test statistic has an approximated chi-squared distribution under the null hypothesis of multivariate normality. As in the univariate case, the new test statistic is based on a comparison of observed and expected frequencies for specified events in sample space. In the univariate case, these events are the standard class intervals, but in the multivariate extension we propose these become hyper-ellipsoidal annuli in multivariate sample space. We assess the performance of the new test using Monte Carlo simulation. Keeping the type I error rate fixed, we show that the new test has power that compares favourably with other standard normality tests, though no uniformly most powerful test has been found. We recommend the new test due to its competitive advantages.     

A comparison of the type I error rates of three assessment methods for indirect effects

Mediation analysis is a popular statistical analysis verifying the relation between an independent variable and a dependent variable through a mediator. There are three traditional tests to assess indirect effects: the Baron and Kenny test (BK), the Sobel test (ST) and the bootstrap method (BT). Previous studies have showed that the BT is more powerful and more conceptually appropriate. However, no study has systematically compared these tests regarding the type I error rate. A Monte-Carlo simulation is carried out with 19 scenarios varying paths (but no indirect effect), 9 scenarios varying the direct effect, and 6 sample sizes (1056 different scenarios). Results show that the BT had an overall good performance even for small sample size and whatever the effect sizes. The ST and the BK test were conservative, especially with small sample size and low effect sizes. In conclusion, these tests should be avoided, and the BT is recommended.     

Statistical inference of risk difference in K correlated 2×2 tables with structural zero

K correlated 2×2 tables with structural zero are commonly encountered in infectious disease studies. A hypothesis test for risk difference is considered in K independent 2×2 tables with structural zero in this paper. Score statistic, likelihood ratio statistic and Wald‐type statistic are proposed to test the hypothesis on the basis of stratified data and pooled data. Sample size formulae are derived for controlling a pre‐specified power or a pre‐determined confidence interval width. Our empirical results show that score statistic and likelihood ratio statistic behave better than Wald‐type statistic in terms of type I error rate and coverage probability, sample sizes based on stratified test are smaller than those based on the pooled test in the same design. A real example is used to illustrate the proposed methodologies. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Monte Carlo comparison of Jarque–Bera type tests and Henze–Zirkler test of multivariate normality

In the paper, tests for multivariate normality (MVN) of Jarque-Bera type, based on skewness and kurtosis, have been considered. Tests proposed by Mardia and Srivastava, and the combined tests based on skewness and kurtosis defined by Jarque and Bera have been taken into account. In the Monte Carlo simulations, for each combination of p = 2, 3, 4, 5 number of traits and n = 10(5)50(10)100 sample sizes 10,000 runs have been done to calculate empirical Type I errors of tests under consideration, and empirical power against different alternative distributions. Simulation results have been compared to the Henze–Zirkler’s test. It should be stressed that no test yet proposed is uniformly better than all the others in every combination of conditions examined.     

Application of Anbar's Approach to Hypothesis Testing to Detect the Difference between Two Proportions

In this paper, Anbar's (1983) approach for estimating a difference between two binomial proportions is discussed with respect to a hypothesis testing problem. Such an approach results in two possible testing strategies. While the results of the tests are expected to agree for a large sample size when two proportions are equal, the tests are shown to perform quite differently in terms of their probabilities of a Type I error for selected sample sizes. Moreover, the tests can lead to different conclusions, which is illustrated via a simple example; and the probability of such cases can be relatively large. In an attempt to improve the tests while preserving their relative simplicity feature, a modified test is proposed. The performance of this test and a conventional test based on normal approximation is assessed. It is shown that the modified Anbar's test better controls the probability of a Type I error for moderate sample sizes.     

Effects of the generalized Box–Cox transformation on Type I error rate and power of Hotelling's T 2

Most multivariate statistical techniques rely on the assumption of multivariate normality. The effects of nonnormality on multivariate tests are assumed to be negligible when variance–covariance matrices and sample sizes are equal. Therefore, in practice, investigators usually do not attempt to assess multivariate normality. In this simulation study, the effects of skewed and leptokurtic multivariate data on the Type I error and power of Hotelling's T ² were examined by manipulating distribution, sample size, and variance–covariance matrix. The empirical Type I error rate and power of Hotelling's T ² were calculated before and after the application of generalized Box–Cox transformation. The findings demonstrated that even when variance–covariance matrices and sample sizes are equal, small to moderate changes in power still can be observed.     

Comparison of ANOVA-F and ANOM tests with regard to type I error rate and test power

A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to compare the type I error rate and test power of the analysis of means (ANOM) test to the one-way analysis of variance F-test (ANOVA-F). Simulation results showed that as long as the homogeneity of the variance assumption was satisfied, regardless of the shape of the distribution, number of group and the combination of observations, both ANOVA-F and ANOM test have displayed similar type I error rates. However, both tests have been negatively affected from the heterogeneity of the variances. This case became more obvious when the variance ratios increased. The test power values of both tests changed with respect to the effect size (Δ), variance ratio and sample size combinations. As long as the variances are homogeneous, ANOVA-F and ANOM test have similar powers except unbalanced cases. Under unbalanced conditions, the ANOVA-F was observed to be powerful than the ANOM-test. On the other hand, an increase in total number of observations caused the power values of ANOVA-F and ANOM test approach to each other. The relations between effect size (Δ) and the variance ratios affected the test power, especially when the sample sizes are not equal. As ANOVA-F has become to be superior in some of the experimental conditions being considered, ANOM is superior in the others. However, generally, when the populations with large mean have larger variances as well, ANOM test has been seen to be superior. On the other hand, when the populations with large mean have small variances, generally, ANOVA-F has observed to be superior. The situation became clearer when the number of the groups is 4 or 5.     

Estimation of the parameters of the Gompertz distribution under the first failure-censored sampling plan

This article presents the goodness-of-fit tests for the Laplace distribution based on its maximum entropy characterization result. The critical values of the test statistics estimated by Monte Carlo simulations are tabulated for various window and sample sizes. The test statistics use an entropy estimator depending on the window size; so, the choice of the optimal window size is an important problem. The window sizes for yielding the maximum power of the tests are given for selected sample sizes. Power studies are performed to compare the proposed tests with goodness-of-fit tests based on the empirical distribution function. Simulation results report that entropy-based tests have consistently higher power than EDF tests against almost all alternatives considered.     

Two separate effects of variance heterogeneity on the validity and power of significance tests of location

Heterogeneity of variances of treatment groups influences the validity and power of significance tests of location in two distinct ways. First, if sample sizes are unequal, the Type I error rate and power are depressed if a larger variance is associated with a larger sample size, and elevated if a larger variance is associated with a smaller sample size. This well-established effect, which occurs in t and F tests, and to a lesser degree in nonparametric rank tests, results from unequal contributions of pooled estimates of error variance in the computation of test statistics. It is observed in samples from normal distributions, as well as non-normal distributions of various shapes. Second, transformation of scores from skewed distributions with unequal variances to ranks produces differences in the means of the ranks assigned to the respective groups, even if the means of the initial groups are equal, and a subsequent inflation of Type I error rates and power. This effect occurs for all sample sizes, equal and unequal. For the t test, the discrepancy diminishes, and for the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test, it becomes larger, as sample size increases. The Welch separate-variance t test overcomes the first effect but not the second. Because of interaction of these separate effects, the validity and power of both parametric and nonparametric tests performed on samples of any size from unknown distributions with possibly unequal variances can be distorted in unpredictable ways.     

Comments

In this paper we compare Bartlett-corrected, bootstrap, and fast double bootstrap tests on maximum likelihood estimates of cointegration parameters. The key result is that both the bootstrap and the Bartlett-corrected tests must be based on the unrestricted estimates of the cointegrating vectors: procedures based on the restricted estimates have almost no power. The small sample size bias of the asymptotic test appears so severe as to advise strongly against its use with the sample sizes commonly available; the fast double bootstrap test minimizes size bias, while the Bartlett-corrected test is somehow more powerful.     

An empirical study of five multivariate tests for the single-factor repeated measures model

A Monte Carlo study was used to examine the Type I error and power values of five multivariate tests for the single-factor repeated measures model The performance of Hotelling's T2 and four nonparametric tests, including a chi-square and an F-test version of a rank-transform procedure, were investigated for different distributions, sample sizes, and numbers of repeated measures. The results indicated that both Hotellings T* and the F-test version of the rank-transform performed well, producing Type I error rates which were close to the nominal value. The chi-square version of the rank-transform test, on the other hand, produced inflated Type I error rates for every condition studied. The Hotelling and F-test version of the rank-transform procedure showed similar power for moderately-skewed distributions, but for strongly skewed distributions the F-test showed much better power. The performance of the other nonparametric tests depended heavily on sample size. Based on these results, the F-test version of the rank-transform procedure is recommended for the single-factor repeated measures model.     

Some robustness issues for comparing multiple logistic regression slopes to a control for small samples

For comparing several logistic regression slopes to that of a control for small sample sizes, Dasgupta et al. (2001) proposed an "asymptotic" small-sample test and a "pivoted" version of that test statistic. Their results show both methods perform well in terms of Type I error control and marginal power when the response is related to the explanatory variable via a logistic regression model. This study finds, via Monte Carlo simulations, that when the underlying relationship is probit, complementary log-log, linear, or even non-monotonic, the "asymptotic" and the "pivoted" small-sample methods perform fairly well in terms of Type I error control and marginal power. Unlike their large sample competitors, they are generally robust to departures from the logistic regression model.     

Testing the equality of several inverse Gaussian means under heterogeneity

Abstract

We consider the problem of testing the equality of several inverse Gaussian means when the scale parameters and sample sizes are possibly unequal. We propose four parametric bootstrap (PB) tests based on the uniformly minimum variance unbiased estimators of parameters. We also compare our proposed tests with the existing ones via an extensive simulation study in terms of controlling the Type I error rate and power performance. Simulation results show the merits of the PB tests.