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.     

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.     

Testing Variability in the Two-Sample Case

A number of robust methods for testing variability have been reported in previous literature. An examination of these procedures for a wide variety of populations confirms their general robustness. Shoemaker's improvement of the F test extends that test use to a realistic variety of population shapes. However, a combination of the Brown–Forsythe and O'Brien methods based on testing kurtosis is shown to be conservative for a wide range of sample sizes and population distributions. The composite test is also shown to be more powerful in most conditions than other conservative procedures.     

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.     

Robust tests for the equality of variances for clustered data

Tests for the equality of variances are often needed in applications. In genetic studies the assumption of equal variances of continuous traits, measured in identical and fraternal twins, is crucial for heritability analysis. To test the equality of variances of traits, which are non-normally distributed, Levene [H. Levene, Robust tests for equality of variances, in Contributions to Probability and Statistics, I. Olkin, ed. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California, 1960, pp. 278–292] suggested a method that was surprisingly robust under non-normality, and the procedure was further improved by Brown and Forsythe [M.B. Brown and A.B. Forsythe, Robust tests for the equality of variances, J. Amer. Statis. Assoc. 69 (1974), pp. 364–367]. These tests assumed independence of observations. However, twin data are clustered – observations within a twin pair may be dependent due to shared genes and environmental factors. Uncritical application of the tests of Brown and Forsythe to clustered data may result in much higher than nominal Type I error probabilities. To deal with clustering we developed an extended version of Levene's test, where the ANOVA step is replaced with a regression analysis followed by a Wald-type test based on a clustered version of the robust Huber–White sandwich estimator of the covariance matrix. We studied the properties of our procedure using simulated non-normal clustered data and obtained Type I error rates close to nominal as well as reasonable powers. We also applied our method to oral glucose tolerance test data obtained from a twin study of the metabolic syndrome and related components and compared the results with those produced by the traditional approaches.     

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.     

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 closer examination on some parametric alternatives to the ANOVA F-test

In experiments, the classical (ANOVA) F-test is often used to test the omnibus null-hypothesis μ₁ = μ₂ ... = μ _j = ... = μ _n (all n population means are equal) in a one-way ANOVA design, even when one or more basic assumptions are being violated. In the first part of this article, we will briefly discuss the consequences of the different types of violations of the basic assumptions (dependent measurements, non-normality, heteroscedasticity) on the validity of the F-test. Secondly, we will present a simulation experiment, designed to compare the type I-error and power properties of both the F-test and some of its parametric adaptations: the Brown & Forsythe F^*-test and Welch’s V_w-test. It is concluded that the Welch V_w-test offers acceptable control over the type I-error rate in combination with (very) high power in most of the experimental conditions. Therefore, its use is highly recommended when one or more basic assumptions are being violated. In general, the use of the Brown & Forsythe F^*-test cannot be recommended on power considerations unless the design is balanced and the homoscedasticity assumption holds.     

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     

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 approach to robust procedures based on censored samples

By adopting; the Bayesian method, we develop in this paper some robust procedures for the one and two-sample location problems based on symmetric Type-II censored samples and by assuming normality for the censored samples. The posterior distributions and the Highest Posterior Density (H.P.D.) intervals are? derived. Finally, we illustrate these procedures by applying the results to Darwin's data and to Brown lee's data     

Some robust anova procedures under heteroscedasticity and nonnormality

In this paper we consider the problem of comparing several means under heteroscedasticity and nonnormality. By combining Huber‘s M-estimators with the Brown-Forsythe test, several robust procedures were developed; these procedures were compared through computer simulation studies with the Tan-Tabatabai procedure which was developed by combining Tiku's MML estimators with the Brown-Forsythe test. The numerical results indicate clearly that the Tan-Tabatabai procedure is considerably more powerful than tests based on Huber's M-estimators over a wide range of nonnormal distributions.     

A Parametric Bootstrap Solution to Two-way MANOVA without Interaction under Heteroscedasticity: Fixed and Mixed Models

In this article, we propose a parametric bootstrap (PB) test for heteroscedastic two-way multivariate analysis of variance without Interaction. For the problem of testing equal main effects of factors, we obtain a PB approach and compare it with existing modified Brown–Forsythe (MBF) test and approximate Hotelling T² (AHT) test by an extensive simulation study. The PB test is a symmetric function in samples, and does not depend on the chosen weights used to define the parameters uniquely. Simulation results indicate that the PB test performs satisfactorily for various cell sizes and parameter configurations when the homogeneity assumption is seriously violated, and tends to outperform the AHT test for moderate or larger samples in terms of power and controlling size. The MBF test, the AHT test, and the PB test have similar robustness to violations of underlying assumptions. It is also noted that the same PB test can be used to test the significance of random effect vector in a two-way multivariate mixed effects model with unequal cell covariance matrices.     

Comparing distributions of time to onset of disease in animal tumorigenicity experiments

The cause-of-death test of Peto et al.(1980)pools information from a Hoel-Walburg test on incidental tumors with information from a logrank test on fatal tumors in order to compare the tumor rate of a group of rodents exposed to a carcinogen against the tumor rate of a group of unexposed animals. The cause-of-death test, which can arise as a partial likelihood score test from a model that assumes proportional odds for tumor prevalence and proportional hazards for tumor mortality, is not, in general, a direct test for equality of tumor onset distributions for occult tumors that are observed in both fatal and incidental contexts. This paper develops a direct cause-of-death test for comparing distributions of time to onset of occultumors. The test is derived as a partial likelihood score test under an assumed proportional hazards model for tumor onset distributions. The size and power of the proposed test are compared in a Monte Carlo simulation study to the size and power of competitive procedures, including procedures that do not require cause-of-death information.     

Diagnostic tests for the distribution of random effects in multivariate mixed effects models

Abstract

Fourier methods are proposed for testing the distribution of random effects in classical and robust multivariate mixed effects models. The test statistics involve estimation of the characteristic function of random effects. Theoretical and computational issues are addressed while Monte Carlo results show that the new procedures compare favorably with other methods.     

Robust tests for the common principal components model

When dealing with several populations, the common principal components (CPC) model assumes equal principal axes but different variances along them. In this paper, a robust log-likelihood ratio statistic allowing to test the null hypothesis of a CPC model versus no restrictions on the scatter matrices is introduced. The proposal plugs into the classical log-likelihood ratio statistic robust scatter estimators. Using the same idea, a robust log-likelihood ratio and a robust Wald-type statistic for testing proportionality against a CPC model are considered. Their asymptotic distributions under the null hypothesis and their partial influence functions are derived. A small simulation study allows to compare the behavior of the classical and robust tests, under normal and contaminated data.     

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.     

Testing the equality means of several log-normal distributions

Researches propose various methods for comparing the means of two log-normal distributions. Some of these methods have been recently extended to test the equality means of several log-normal populations. Investigations show that none of the established methods is satisfactory. In this article, we provide three methods based on the computational approach test, which is a parametric bootstrap approach, for testing the means of several log-normal distributions. Further, we compare our methods with the existing methods through Monte Carlo simulation. The numerical results show that the Type I errors of these procedures are satisfactory regardless of the sample size, number of populations, and the true parameters. Finally, we explain the considered methods by real examples.     

On some test statistics for testing homogeneity of variances: a comparative study

In this paper, we have reviewed 25 test procedures that are widely reported in the literature for testing the hypothesis of homogeneity of variances under various experimental conditions. Since a theoretical comparison was not possible, a simulation study has been conducted to compare the performance of the test statistics in terms of robustness and empirical power. Monte Carlo simulation was performed for various symmetric and skewed distributions, number of groups, sample size per group, degree of group size inequalities, and degree of variance heterogeneity. Using simulation results and based on the robustness and power of the tests, some promising test statistics are recommended for practitioners.     

An evaluation of some nonparametric multiple comparison procedures by Monte Carlo methods

Computer simulation techniques were employed to investigate the Type I and Type II error rates (experiment-wise and comparison-wise) of three nonparametric multiple comparison procedures. Three different underlying distributions were considered. It was found that the nonparametric analog to Fisher’s LSD (a Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests if a significant overall effect is detected) appeared to be superior to the Nemenyi-Dunn and Steel-Dwass procedures, because of the extreme conservatism of these latter methods.