Cargando…
Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30040850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837 |
_version_ | 1783341567665242112 |
---|---|
author | McGee, Monnie |
author_facet | McGee, Monnie |
author_sort | McGee, Monnie |
collection | PubMed |
description | When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations when the observations in the data are continuous. However, in practice, observations are discretized due various logical reasons, or the data are ordinal in nature. When ranks are tied, most textbooks recommend using mid-ranks to replace the tied ranks, a practice that affects the distribution of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test under the null hypothesis. Other methods for breaking ties have also been proposed. In this study, we examine four tie-breaking methods—average-scores, mid-ranks, jittering, and omission—for their effects on Type I and Type II error of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test and the two-sample t-test for various combinations of sample sizes, underlying population distributions, and percentages of tied observations. We use the results to determine the maximum percentage of ties for which the power and size are seriously affected, and for which method of tie-breaking results in the best Type I and Type II error properties. Not surprisingly, the underlying population distribution of the data has less of an effect on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test than on the t-test. Surprisingly, we find that the jittering and omission methods tend to hold Type I error at the nominal level, even for small sample sizes, with no substantial sacrifice in terms of Type II error. Furthermore, the t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test are equally effected by ties in terms of Type I and Type II error; therefore, we recommend omitting tied observations when they occur for both the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney due to the bias in Type I error that is created when tied observations are left in the data, in the case of the t-test, or adjusted using mid-ranks or average-scores, in the case of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6057651 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60576512018-08-06 Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test McGee, Monnie PLoS One Research Article When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations when the observations in the data are continuous. However, in practice, observations are discretized due various logical reasons, or the data are ordinal in nature. When ranks are tied, most textbooks recommend using mid-ranks to replace the tied ranks, a practice that affects the distribution of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test under the null hypothesis. Other methods for breaking ties have also been proposed. In this study, we examine four tie-breaking methods—average-scores, mid-ranks, jittering, and omission—for their effects on Type I and Type II error of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test and the two-sample t-test for various combinations of sample sizes, underlying population distributions, and percentages of tied observations. We use the results to determine the maximum percentage of ties for which the power and size are seriously affected, and for which method of tie-breaking results in the best Type I and Type II error properties. Not surprisingly, the underlying population distribution of the data has less of an effect on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test than on the t-test. Surprisingly, we find that the jittering and omission methods tend to hold Type I error at the nominal level, even for small sample sizes, with no substantial sacrifice in terms of Type II error. Furthermore, the t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test are equally effected by ties in terms of Type I and Type II error; therefore, we recommend omitting tied observations when they occur for both the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney due to the bias in Type I error that is created when tied observations are left in the data, in the case of the t-test, or adjusted using mid-ranks or average-scores, in the case of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney. Public Library of Science 2018-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6057651/ /pubmed/30040850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837 Text en © 2018 Monnie McGee http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article McGee, Monnie Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title | Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title_full | Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title_fullStr | Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title_full_unstemmed | Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title_short | Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test |
title_sort | case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the wilcoxon-mann-whitney test |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057651/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30040850 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcgeemonnie caseforomittingtiedobservationsinthetwosamplettestandthewilcoxonmannwhitneytest |