Effect of non‐normality on test statistics for one‐way independent groups designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The data obtained from one-way independent groups designs is typically non-normal in form and rarely equally variable across treatment populations (i.e., population variances are heterogeneous). Consequently, the classical test statistic that is used to assess statistical significance (i.e., the analysis of variance F test) typically provides invalid results (e.g., too many Type I errors, reduced power). For this reason, there has been considerable interest in finding a test statistic that is appropriate under conditions of non-normality and variance heterogeneity. Previously recommended procedures for analysing such data include the James test, the Welch test applied either to the usual least squares estimators of central tendency and variability, or the Welch test with robust estimators (i.e., trimmed means and Winsorized variances). A new statistic proposed by Krishnamoorthy, Lu, and Mathew, intended to deal with heterogeneous variances, though not non-normality, uses a parametric bootstrap procedure. In their investigation of the parametric bootstrap test, the authors examined its operating characteristics under limited conditions and did not compare it to the Welch test based on robust estimators. Thus, we investigated how the parametric bootstrap procedure and a modified parametric bootstrap procedure based on trimmed means perform relative to previously recommended procedures when data are non-normal and heterogeneous. The results indicated that the tests based on trimmed means offer the best Type I error control and power when variances are unequal and at least some of the distribution shapes are non-normal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.483 | 0.814 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".