Levene type tests for the ratio of two scales

Tests for the equality of variances are of interest in many areas such as quality control, agricultural production systems, experimental education, pharmacology, biology, as well as a preliminary to the analysis of variance, dose–response modelling or discriminant analysis. The literature is vast. Traditional non-parametric tests are due to Mood, Miller and Ansari–Bradley. A test which usually stands out in terms of power and robustness against non-normality is the W50 Brown and Forsythe [Robust tests for the equality of variances, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69 (1974), pp. 364–367] modification of the Levene test [Robust tests for equality of variances, in Contributions to Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed., Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1960, pp. 278–292]. This paper deals with the two-sample scale problem and in particular with Levene type tests. We consider 10 Levene type tests: the W50, the M50 and L50 tests [G. Pan, On a Levene type test for equality of two variances, J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 63 (1999), pp. 59–71], the R-test [R.G. O'Brien, A general ANOVA method for robust tests of additive models for variances, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 74 (1979), pp. 877–880], as well as the bootstrap and permutation versions of the W50, L50 and R tests. We consider also the F-test, the modified Fligner and Killeen [Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 71 (1976), pp. 210–213] test, an adaptive test due to Hall and Padmanabhan [Adaptive inference for the two-sample scale problem, Technometrics 23 (1997), pp. 351–361] and the two tests due to Shoemaker [Tests for differences in dispersion based on quantiles, Am. Stat. 49(2) (1995), pp. 179–182; Interquantile tests for dispersion in skewed distributions, Commun. Stat. Simul. Comput. 28 (1999), pp. 189–205]. The aim is to identify the effective methods for detecting scale differences. Our study is different with respect to the other ones since it is focused on resampling versions of the Levene type tests, and many tests considered here have not ever been proposed and/or compared. The computationally simplest test found robust is W50. Higher power, while preserving robustness, is achieved by considering the resampling version of Levene type tests like the permutation R-test (recommended for normal- and light-tailed distributions) and the bootstrap L50 test (recommended for heavy-tailed and skewed distributions). Among non-Levene type tests, the best one is the adaptive test due to Hall and Padmanabhan.     

Adaptive bootstrap tests and its competitors in the c-sample scale problem

This paper deals with a study of different types of tests for the two-sided c-sample scale problem. We consider the classical parametric test of Bartlett [M.S. Bartlett, Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests, Proc. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A. 160 (1937), pp. 268–282] several nonparametric tests, especially the test of Fligner and Killeen [M.A. Fligner and T.J. Killeen, Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 71 (1976), pp. 210–213], the test of Levene [H. Levene, Robust tests for equality of variances, in Contribution to Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed., Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, 1960, pp. 278–292] and a robust version of it introduced by Brown and Forsythe [M.B. Brown and A.B. Forsythe, Robust tests for the equality of variances, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69 (1974), pp. 364–367] as well as two adaptive tests proposed by Büning [H. Büning, Adaptive tests for the c-sample location problem – the case of two-sided alternatives, Comm. Statist.Theory Methods. 25 (1996), pp. 1569–1582] and Büning [H. Büning, An adaptive test for the two sample scale problem, Nr. 2003/10, Diskussionsbeiträge des Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaft der Freien Universität Berlin, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe, 2003]. which are based on the principle of Hogg [R.V. Hogg, Adaptive robust procedures. A partial review and some suggestions for future applications and theory, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69 (1974), pp. 909–927]. For all the tests we use Bootstrap sampling strategies, too. We compare via Monte Carlo Methods all the tests by investigating level α and power β of the tests for distributions with different strength of tailweight and skewness and for various sample sizes. It turns out that the test of Fligner and Killeen in combination with the bootstrap is the best one among all tests considered.     

A robust test for the homogeneity of scales

Many robust tests for the equality of variances have been proposed recently. Brown and Forsythe (1974) and Layard (1973) review some of the well-known procedures and compare them by simulation methods. Brown and Forsythe’s alternative formulation of Levene’s test statistic is found to be quite robust under certain nonnormal distributions. The performance of the methods, however, suffers in the presence of heavy tailed distributions such as the Cauchy distribution.

In this paper, we propose and study a simple robust test. The results obtained from the Monte Carlo study compare favorably with those of the existing procedures.     

The 'improved' brown and forsythe test for mean equality: some things can't be fixed

Mehrotra (1997) presented an ‘;improved’ Brown and Forsythe (1974) statistic which is designed to provide a valid test of mean equality in independent groups designs when variances are heterogeneous. In particular, the usual Brown and Fosythe procedure was modified by using a Satterthwaite approximation for numerator degrees of freedom instead of the usual value of number of groups minus one. Mehrotra then, through Monte Carlo methods, demonstrated that the ‘improved’ method resulted in a robust test of significance in cases where the usual Brown and Forsythe method did not. Accordingly, this ‘improved’ procedure was recommended. We show that under conditions likely to be encountered in applied settings, that is, conditions involving heterogeneous variances as well as nonnormal data, the ‘improved’ Brown and Forsythe procedure results in depressed or inflated rates of Type I error in unbalanced designs. Previous findings indicate, however, that one can obtain a robust test by adopting a heteroscedastic statistic with the robust estimators, rather than the usual least squares estimators, and further improvement can be expected when critical significance values are obtained through bootstrapping methods.     

Analysis of Type I Error Rates of Univariate and Multivariate Procedures in Repeated Measures Designs

We compared the robustness of univariate and multivariate statistical procedures to control Type I error rates when the normality and homocedasticity assumptions were not fulfilled. The procedures we evaluated are the mixed model adjusted by means of the SAS Proc Mixed module, and Bootstrap-F approach, Brown–Forsythe multivariate approach, Welch–James multivariate approach, and Welch–James multivariate approach with robust estimators. The results suggest that the Kenward Roger, Brown–Forsythe, Welch–James, and Improved Generalized Aprroximate procedures satisfactorily kept Type I error rates within the nominal levels for both the main and interaction effects under most of the conditions assessed.     

New monte carlo results on the robustness of the anova f,w and f statistics

Because the usual F test for equal means is not robust to unequal variances, Brown and Forsythe (1974a) suggest replacing F with the statistics F or W which are based on the Satterthwaite and Welch adjusted degrees of freedom procedures. This paper reports practical situations where both F and W give * unsatisfactory results. In particular, both F and W may not provide adequate control over Type I errors. Moreover, for equal variances, but unequal sample sizes, W should be avoided in favor of F (or F ), but for equal sample sizes, and possibly unequal variances, W was the only satisfactory statistic. New results on power are included as well. The paper also considers the effect of using F or W only after a significant test for equal variances has been obtained, and new results on the robustness of the F test are described. It is found that even for equal sample sizes as large as 50 per treatment group, there are practical situations where the F test does not provide adequately control over the probability of a Type I error.     

Bayesian Alternatives to the F Test for Two Population Variances

Bayesian alternatives to the classical F test comparing two population variances are explored. Shoemaker (2003 Shoemaker , L. H. ( 2003 ). Fixing the F test for equal variances . The Amer. Statistician 57 : 105 – 114 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) suggested two adjustments to the F test due to it being very sensitive to the normal assumption of the two populations. A simulation study is performed to compare the Bayesian alternatives to the F test and Shoemaker's adjusted F tests as well as to the Levene/Brown–Forsythe and the squared rank nonparametric tests. The Bayesian alternatives assume a normal parent distribution and non informative priors and the conjugate prior for the variances; in addition, an exponential power distribution is considered as the parent distribution with a non informative prior for the variances. The latter looks to be very promising provided that a suitable value of a parameter which measures the extent of non normality is chosen.     

Comparison of k independent,zero‐heavy lognormal distributions

Lachenbruch ( 1976 , 2001 ) introduced two‐part tests for comparison of two means in zero‐inflated continuous data. We are extending this approach and compare k independent distributions (by comparing their means, either overall or the departure from equal proportion of zeros and equal means of nonzero values) by introducing two tests: a two‐part Wald test and a two‐part likelihood ratio test. If the continuous part of the distributions is lognormal then the proposed two test statistics have asymptotically chi‐square distribution with $2(k-1)$ degrees of freedom. A simulation study was conducted to compare the performance of the proposed tests with several well‐known tests such as ANOVA, Welch ( 1951 ), Brown & Forsythe ( 1974 ), Kruskal–Wallis, and one‐part Wald test proposed by Tu & Zhou ( 1999 ). Results indicate that the proposed tests keep the nominal type I error and have consistently best power among all tests being compared. An application to rainfall data is provided as an example. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 39: 690–702; 2011. © 2011 Statistical Society of Canada     

Adjusted homogeneity tests of odds ratios when data are clustered

Three modified tests for homogeneity of the odds ratio for a series of 2 × 2 tables are studied when the data are clustered. In the case of clustered data, the standard tests for homogeneity of odds ratios ignore the variance inflation caused by positive correlation among responses of subjects within the same cluster, and therefore have inflated Type I error. The modified tests adjust for the variance inflation in the three existing standard tests: Breslow–Day, Tarone and the conditional score test. The degree of clustering effect is measured by the intracluster correlation coefficient, ρ. A variance correction factor derived from ρ is then applied to the variance estimator in the standard tests of homogeneity of the odds ratio. The proposed tests are an application of the variance adjustment method commonly used in correlated data analysis and are shown to maintain the nominal significance level in a simulation study. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Book Reviews

The Levene test is a widely used test for detecting differences in dispersion. The modified Levene transformation using sample medians is considered in this article. After Levene's transformation the data are not normally distributed, hence, nonparametric tests may be useful. As the Wilcoxon rank sum test applied to the transformed data cannot control the type I error rate for asymmetric distributions, a permutation test based on reallocations of the original observations rather than the absolute deviations was investigated. Levene's transformation is then only an intermediate step to compute the test statistic. Such a Levene test, however, cannot control the type I error rate when the Wilcoxon statistic is used; with the Fisher–Pitman permutation test it can be extremely conservative. The Fisher–Pitman test based on reallocations of the transformed data seems to be the only acceptable nonparametric test. Simulation results indicate that this test is on average more powerful than applying the t test after Levene's transformation, even when the t test is improved by the deletion of structural zeros.     

A Distribution Free Test for the Equality of Scales

Situations where scale parameters are not nuisance factors to be controlled but outcomes to be explained arise in many contexts such as quality control, agricultural production systems, experimental education, the pharmaceutical industry and biology. Tests for homogeneity of variances are often of interest also as a preliminary to analysis of variance, dose-response modelling or discriminant analysis. The literature on tests for the equality of scales is vast. A test which usually stands out in terms of power and robustness against non normality is the modified Levene W50 test, however in the literature no test is found to be the most powerful one for every distribution. The goal of the article is to propose an effective method for comparing scales. More precisely, we propose a test for the equality of scales that, even though was not the most powerful one for every distribution, it has good overall performance under every type of distribution. This test has the form of a combined resampling test. It is important to note that non combined tests show good performance only in particular contexts. Size and power of the proposed test are studied via simulation and compared with many other robust tests for scale. A practical application to industrial quality control is discussed.     

A Test for the Equality of Parameters for Separate Regression Models in the Presence of Heteroskedasticity

Testing for the equality of regression coefficients across two regressions is a problem considered by analysts in a variety of fields. If the variances of the errors of the two regressions are not equal, then it is known that the standard large sample F-test used to test the equality of the coefficients is compromised by the fact that its actual size can differ substantially from the stated level of significance in small samples. This article addresses this problem and borrows from the literature on the Behrens-Fisher problem to provide some simple modifications of the large sample test which allows one to better control the probability of committing a Type I error. Empirical evidence is presented which indicates that the suggested modifications provide tests which are superior to well-known alternative tests over a wide range of the parameter space.     

Hypothesis Testing in Multivariate Linear Models with Randomly Missing Data

Tests for mean equality proposed by Weerahandi (1995) and Chen and Chen (1998), tests that do not require equality of population variances, were examined when data were not only heterogeneous but, as well, nonnormal in unbalanced completely randomized designs. Furthermore, these tests were compared to a test examined by Lix and Keselman (1998), a test that uses a heteroscedastic statistic (i.e., Welch, 1951) with robust estimators (20% trimmed means and Winsorized variances). Our findings confirmed previously published data that the tests are indeed robust to variance heterogeneity when the data are obtained from normal populations. However, the Weerahandi (1995) and Chen and Chen (1998) tests were not found to be robust when data were obtained from nonnormal populations. Indeed, rates of Type I error were typically in excess of 10% and, at times, exceeded 50%. On the other hand, the statistic presented by Lix and Keselman (1998) was generally robust to variance heterogeneity and nonnormality.     

Testing equality of variances for several normal populations

In this study, we develop a test based on computational approach for the equality of variances of several normal populations. The proposed method is numerically compared with the existing methods. The numeric results demonstrate that the proposed method performs very well in terms of type I error rate and power of test. Furthermore we study the robustness of the tests by using simulation study when the underlying data are from t, exponential and uniform distributions. Finally we analyze a real dataset that motivated our study using the proposed test.     

A robust procedure for comparing several means under heteroscedasticity and nonnormality

By applying Tiku's MML robust procedure to Brown and Forsythe's (1974) statistic, this paper derives a robust and more powerful procedure for comparing several means under hetero-scedasticity and nonnormality. Some Monte Carlo studies indicate clearly that among five nonnormal distributions, except for the uniform distribution, the new test is more powerful than the Brown and Forsythe test under nonnormal distributions in all cases investigated and has substantially the same power as the Brown and Forsythe test under normal distribution.     

Heterogeneity of variance and biased hypothesis tests

This study examined the influence of heterogeneity of variance on Type I error rates and power of the independent-samples Student's t-test of equality of means on samples of scores from normal and 10 non-normal distributions. The same test of equality of means was performed on corresponding rank-transformed scores. For many non-normal distributions, both versions produced anomalous power functions, resulting partly from the fact that the hypothesis test was biased, so that under some conditions, the probability of rejecting H ₀ decreased as the difference between means increased. In all cases where bias occurred, the t-test on ranks exhibited substantially greater bias than the t-test on scores. This anomalous result was independent of the more familiar changes in Type I error rates and power attributable to unequal sample sizes combined with unequal variances.     

Testing equality of generalized variances of k multivariate normal populations

Generalized variance is a measure of dispersion of multivariate data. Comparison of dispersion of multivariate data is one of the favorite issues for multivariate quality control, generalized homogeneity of multidimensional scatter, etc. In this article, the problem of testing equality of generalized variances of k multivariate normal populations by using the Bartlett's modified likelihood ratio test (BMLRT) is proposed. Simulations to compare the Type I error rate and power of the BMLRT and the likelihood ratio test (LRT) methods are performed. These simulations show that the BMLRT method has a better chi-square approximation under the null hypothesis. Finally, a practical example is given.     

Empirical Study of Six Tests for Equality of Populations with Zero-Inflated Continuous Distributions

We evaluated the properties of six statistical methods for testing equality among populations with zero-inflated continuous distributions. These tests are based on likelihood ratio (LR), Wald, central limit theorem (CLT), modified CLT (MCLT), parametric jackknife (PJ), and nonparametric jackknife (NPJ) statistics. We investigated their statistical properties using simulated data from mixed distributions with an unknown portion of non zero observations that have an underlying gamma, exponential, or log-normal density function and the remaining portion that are excessive zeros. The 6 statistical tests are compared in terms of their empirical Type I errors and powers estimated through 10,000 repeated simulated samples for carefully selected configurations of parameters. The LR, Wald, and PJ tests are preferred tests since their empirical Type I errors were close to the preset nominal 0.05 level and each demonstrated good power for rejecting null hypotheses when the sample sizes are at least 125 in each group. The NPJ test had unacceptable empirical Type I errors because it rejected far too often while the CLT and MCLT tests had low testing powers in some cases. Therefore, these three tests are not recommended for general use but the LR, Wald, and PJ tests all performed well in large sample applications.     

Testing the equality of several means when the population variances are unequal

A comparative study is made of three tests, developed by James (1951), Welch (1951) and Brown & Forsythe (1974). James presented two methods of which only one is considered in this paper. It is shown that this method gives better control over the size than the other two tests. None of these methods is uniformly more powerful than the other two. In some cases the tests of James and Welch reject a false null hypothesis more often than the test of Brown & Forsythe, but there are also situations in which it is the other way around.

We conclude that for implementation in a statistical software package the very complicated test of James is the most attractive. A practical disadvantage of this method can be overcome by a minor modification.     

A Parametric Bootstrap Test for Two-Way ANOVA Model Without Interaction Under Heteroscedasticity

In this article we consider the two-way ANOVA model without interaction under heteroscedasticity. For the problem of testing equal effects of factors, we propose a parametric bootstrap (PB) approach and compare it with existing the generalized F (GF) test. The Type I error rates and powers of the tests are evaluated using Monte Carlo simulation. Our studies show that the PB test performs better than the GF test. The PB test performs very satisfactorily even for small samples while the GF test exhibits poor Type I error properties when the number of factorial combinations or treatments goes up. It is also noted that the same tests can be used to test the significance of random effect variance component in a two-way mixed-effects model under unequal error variances.