non parametric test for samples with unequal variance for 3 or more samplesWilcoxon Test - non normality, non equal variances, sample size not the sameNon-parametric for two-way ANOVA (3x3)How to choose between t-test or non-parametric test e.g. Wilcoxon in small samplesComparisons on nonparametic, unequal variance dataNon-parametric test equivalent to mixed ANOVA?Comparison of variance between two samples with unequal sample sizeParametric or non parametric test

Tips for remembering the order of parameters for ln?

What did the first ever Hunger Games look like?

Statistical tests for benchmark comparison

Why is the year in this ISO timestamp not 2019?

Are all men created equal according to Hinduism? Is this predominant western belief in agreement with the Vedas?

What does the "capacitor into resistance" symbol mean?

Which version of the Pigeonhole principle is correct? One is far stronger than the other

Wouldn't Kreacher have been able to escape even without following an order?

Floating Point XOR

What are some examples of research that does not solve a existing problem (maybe the problem is not obvious yet) but present a unique discovery?

How many people need to succeed in a group check with three people?

Where is it? - The Google Earth Challenge Ep. 4

Plot irregular circle in latex

How to give my students a straightedge instead of a ruler

Should I inform my future product owner that there are big chances that a team member will leave the company soon?

Comparing Investment Style with Fama French 3 Factor Model

Which block header fields are miners able to change in an effort to avoid having to recalculate the Merkle Root?

How would you translate Evangelii Nuntiandi?

What are the typical trumpet parts in classical music?

Why does '/' contain '..'?

Transit visa to Hong Kong

How to make classical firearms effective on space habitats despite the coriolis effect?

Bash attempts to write two shell prompts?

6+8=71 move two matches



non parametric test for samples with unequal variance for 3 or more samples


Wilcoxon Test - non normality, non equal variances, sample size not the sameNon-parametric for two-way ANOVA (3x3)How to choose between t-test or non-parametric test e.g. Wilcoxon in small samplesComparisons on nonparametic, unequal variance dataNon-parametric test equivalent to mixed ANOVA?Comparison of variance between two samples with unequal sample sizeParametric or non parametric test






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








1












$begingroup$


I have data which is independent, but non-normal, with unequal variance. There are more than two groups, all with the same sample size. Which non-parametric test can I use?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    5 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$


I have data which is independent, but non-normal, with unequal variance. There are more than two groups, all with the same sample size. Which non-parametric test can I use?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    5 hours ago














1












1








1





$begingroup$


I have data which is independent, but non-normal, with unequal variance. There are more than two groups, all with the same sample size. Which non-parametric test can I use?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have data which is independent, but non-normal, with unequal variance. There are more than two groups, all with the same sample size. Which non-parametric test can I use?







nonparametric






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 6 hours ago









Ben Bolker

26k2 gold badges70 silver badges97 bronze badges




26k2 gold badges70 silver badges97 bronze badges










asked 8 hours ago









IvanIvan

205 bronze badges




205 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    5 hours ago

















  • $begingroup$
    You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
    $endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    5 hours ago
















$begingroup$
You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
5 hours ago





$begingroup$
You should not be using characteristics you identify in the sample you're testing to choose which test you use, since it impacts the properties of the test (e.g. p-values won't be uniform under the null). What are the characteristics of your variables? Why would normality be the only parametric distributional model considered? Are you interested in shift alternatives or more general ones? Is the situation one in which the population distributions would plausibly be the same when the null were true? (e.g one in which a 'no treatment effect' would imply no effect on the distribution at all)
$endgroup$
– Glen_b
5 hours ago











2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3














$begingroup$

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a rank-based analogue of 1-way ANOVA, so it would be a reasonable approach to nonparametric testing of differences in location for >=2 groups.



HOWEVER: the "unequal variance" thing really messes you up. This answer discusses why unequal variances are problematic for Mann-Whitney tests (the 2-sample version of K-W/non-parametric version of the t-test), and the same problem applies to K-W, as discussed on Wikipedia (linked above):




If the researcher can make the assumptions of an identically shaped and scaled distribution for all groups, except for any difference in medians, then the null hypothesis is that the medians of all groups are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one population median of one group is different from the population median of at least one other group.




Loosely speaking, from my answer to the Mann-Whitney question:




If you are satisfied with showing that the distribution of the groups differs in some way from that of men, then you don't need the extra assumption [of equality of distribution except for location].







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    6 hours ago


















3














$begingroup$

Comment:



Simulated gamma data Here are simulated gamma data to illustrate some of the points in BenBolker's Answer (+1). Although
none of the traditional tests is completely satisfactory, the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows differences in groups for
my fake data (in which one difference between groups is rather large).



set.seed(123)
x1 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .2), 3)
x2 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .25), 3)
x3 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .35), 3)
sd(x1); sd(x2); sd(x3)
[1] 10.30572
[1] 6.218724
[1] 6.483086


Sample standard deviations differ, and box plots show different
dispersions along with different locations.



x = c(x1, x2, x3)
g = as.factor(rep(1:3, each=20))
boxplot(x ~ g, notch=T, col="skyblue2")


enter image description here



Notches in the sides of the boxes are nonparametric
confidence intervals calibrated so that, comparing
two groups, CIs that overlap suggest no significant
difference. So the first and last groups may differ significantly.



Kruskal-Wallis test, with ad hoc Wilcoxon comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis test detects differences among the
three groups.



kruskal.test(x ~ g)

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data: x by g
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 13.269,
df = 2, p-value = 0.001314


Ad hoc tests with two-sample Wilcoxon tests show significant differences between groups 1 and 3. P-values for the other two comparisons are not small enough to satisfy the Bonferroni criterion
against false discovery.



wilcox.test(x1,x2)$p.val
[1] 0.01674239
wilcox.test(x2,x3)$
p.val
[1] 0.06343245
wilcox.test(x1,x3)$p.val
[1] 0.000667562


Welch one-factor ANOVA with ad hoc Welch t comparisons. Here we have moderately large samples and only moderate
skewness. A Welch one-way ANOVA, which does not
assume equal variances may be useful. The overall test gives a highly significant result; you could use Welch two-sample t tests for ad hoc comparisons.



oneway.test(x ~ g)

One-way analysis of means
(not assuming equal variances)

data: x and g
F = 6.905, num df = 2.000, denom df = 36.733,
p-value = 0.002847


Permutation test focused on differences among group means. Finally, a permutation test with the standard deviation
of the three (permuted) group means as 'metric', shows a significant difference. This metric focuses on differences among group means. The test is nonparametric. The P-value 0.0008 is similar to that of the
Kruskal-Wallis test.



d.obs = sd(c(mean(x1),mean(x2),mean(x3)))
set.seed(915)
m = 10^5; d.prm = numeric(m)
for(i in 1:m)
x.prm = sample(x) # scrambe obs among gps
a1=mean(x.prm[1:20]); a2=mean(x.prm[21:40]); a3=mean(x.prm[41:60])
d.prm[i] = sd(c(a1,a1,a3))
mean(d.prm >= d.obs)
[1] 0.00075
length(unique(d.prm))
[1] 77417


Of the 100,000 iterations there were over 77,000
uniquely different values of d.prm. Their histogram
is shown below along with the value 5.235 of d.obs.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    3 hours ago













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "65"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);














draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427383%2fnon-parametric-test-for-samples-with-unequal-variance-for-3-or-more-samples%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














$begingroup$

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a rank-based analogue of 1-way ANOVA, so it would be a reasonable approach to nonparametric testing of differences in location for >=2 groups.



HOWEVER: the "unequal variance" thing really messes you up. This answer discusses why unequal variances are problematic for Mann-Whitney tests (the 2-sample version of K-W/non-parametric version of the t-test), and the same problem applies to K-W, as discussed on Wikipedia (linked above):




If the researcher can make the assumptions of an identically shaped and scaled distribution for all groups, except for any difference in medians, then the null hypothesis is that the medians of all groups are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one population median of one group is different from the population median of at least one other group.




Loosely speaking, from my answer to the Mann-Whitney question:




If you are satisfied with showing that the distribution of the groups differs in some way from that of men, then you don't need the extra assumption [of equality of distribution except for location].







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    6 hours ago















3














$begingroup$

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a rank-based analogue of 1-way ANOVA, so it would be a reasonable approach to nonparametric testing of differences in location for >=2 groups.



HOWEVER: the "unequal variance" thing really messes you up. This answer discusses why unequal variances are problematic for Mann-Whitney tests (the 2-sample version of K-W/non-parametric version of the t-test), and the same problem applies to K-W, as discussed on Wikipedia (linked above):




If the researcher can make the assumptions of an identically shaped and scaled distribution for all groups, except for any difference in medians, then the null hypothesis is that the medians of all groups are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one population median of one group is different from the population median of at least one other group.




Loosely speaking, from my answer to the Mann-Whitney question:




If you are satisfied with showing that the distribution of the groups differs in some way from that of men, then you don't need the extra assumption [of equality of distribution except for location].







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    6 hours ago













3














3










3







$begingroup$

The Kruskal-Wallis test is a rank-based analogue of 1-way ANOVA, so it would be a reasonable approach to nonparametric testing of differences in location for >=2 groups.



HOWEVER: the "unequal variance" thing really messes you up. This answer discusses why unequal variances are problematic for Mann-Whitney tests (the 2-sample version of K-W/non-parametric version of the t-test), and the same problem applies to K-W, as discussed on Wikipedia (linked above):




If the researcher can make the assumptions of an identically shaped and scaled distribution for all groups, except for any difference in medians, then the null hypothesis is that the medians of all groups are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one population median of one group is different from the population median of at least one other group.




Loosely speaking, from my answer to the Mann-Whitney question:




If you are satisfied with showing that the distribution of the groups differs in some way from that of men, then you don't need the extra assumption [of equality of distribution except for location].







share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The Kruskal-Wallis test is a rank-based analogue of 1-way ANOVA, so it would be a reasonable approach to nonparametric testing of differences in location for >=2 groups.



HOWEVER: the "unequal variance" thing really messes you up. This answer discusses why unequal variances are problematic for Mann-Whitney tests (the 2-sample version of K-W/non-parametric version of the t-test), and the same problem applies to K-W, as discussed on Wikipedia (linked above):




If the researcher can make the assumptions of an identically shaped and scaled distribution for all groups, except for any difference in medians, then the null hypothesis is that the medians of all groups are equal, and the alternative hypothesis is that at least one population median of one group is different from the population median of at least one other group.




Loosely speaking, from my answer to the Mann-Whitney question:




If you are satisfied with showing that the distribution of the groups differs in some way from that of men, then you don't need the extra assumption [of equality of distribution except for location].








share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 8 hours ago









Ben BolkerBen Bolker

26k2 gold badges70 silver badges97 bronze badges




26k2 gold badges70 silver badges97 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    6 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
    $endgroup$
    – Ivan
    7 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Bolker
    6 hours ago















$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
$endgroup$
– Ivan
7 hours ago





$begingroup$
Thanks for your answer. Now let's say that I have the same population non normal and unequal variance with more than 2 groups and independant. If I pick two groups (there are 12 in total), 1 of them is a control sample and I want to test if the mean is different from the control group. Would be suitable to do a two sample test? Such as mann whitney? Btw my data is continuous
$endgroup$
– Ivan
7 hours ago













$begingroup$
See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
$endgroup$
– Ben Bolker
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
See my linked answer. Mann-Whitney would be OK for two groups, but: It's very hard to test differences in location (mean, median, etc.) non-parametrically if you're not willing to assume that the distributions in each group are identical up to a shift (change in location).
$endgroup$
– Ben Bolker
6 hours ago













3














$begingroup$

Comment:



Simulated gamma data Here are simulated gamma data to illustrate some of the points in BenBolker's Answer (+1). Although
none of the traditional tests is completely satisfactory, the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows differences in groups for
my fake data (in which one difference between groups is rather large).



set.seed(123)
x1 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .2), 3)
x2 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .25), 3)
x3 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .35), 3)
sd(x1); sd(x2); sd(x3)
[1] 10.30572
[1] 6.218724
[1] 6.483086


Sample standard deviations differ, and box plots show different
dispersions along with different locations.



x = c(x1, x2, x3)
g = as.factor(rep(1:3, each=20))
boxplot(x ~ g, notch=T, col="skyblue2")


enter image description here



Notches in the sides of the boxes are nonparametric
confidence intervals calibrated so that, comparing
two groups, CIs that overlap suggest no significant
difference. So the first and last groups may differ significantly.



Kruskal-Wallis test, with ad hoc Wilcoxon comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis test detects differences among the
three groups.



kruskal.test(x ~ g)

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data: x by g
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 13.269,
df = 2, p-value = 0.001314


Ad hoc tests with two-sample Wilcoxon tests show significant differences between groups 1 and 3. P-values for the other two comparisons are not small enough to satisfy the Bonferroni criterion
against false discovery.



wilcox.test(x1,x2)$p.val
[1] 0.01674239
wilcox.test(x2,x3)$
p.val
[1] 0.06343245
wilcox.test(x1,x3)$p.val
[1] 0.000667562


Welch one-factor ANOVA with ad hoc Welch t comparisons. Here we have moderately large samples and only moderate
skewness. A Welch one-way ANOVA, which does not
assume equal variances may be useful. The overall test gives a highly significant result; you could use Welch two-sample t tests for ad hoc comparisons.



oneway.test(x ~ g)

One-way analysis of means
(not assuming equal variances)

data: x and g
F = 6.905, num df = 2.000, denom df = 36.733,
p-value = 0.002847


Permutation test focused on differences among group means. Finally, a permutation test with the standard deviation
of the three (permuted) group means as 'metric', shows a significant difference. This metric focuses on differences among group means. The test is nonparametric. The P-value 0.0008 is similar to that of the
Kruskal-Wallis test.



d.obs = sd(c(mean(x1),mean(x2),mean(x3)))
set.seed(915)
m = 10^5; d.prm = numeric(m)
for(i in 1:m)
x.prm = sample(x) # scrambe obs among gps
a1=mean(x.prm[1:20]); a2=mean(x.prm[21:40]); a3=mean(x.prm[41:60])
d.prm[i] = sd(c(a1,a1,a3))
mean(d.prm >= d.obs)
[1] 0.00075
length(unique(d.prm))
[1] 77417


Of the 100,000 iterations there were over 77,000
uniquely different values of d.prm. Their histogram
is shown below along with the value 5.235 of d.obs.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    3 hours ago















3














$begingroup$

Comment:



Simulated gamma data Here are simulated gamma data to illustrate some of the points in BenBolker's Answer (+1). Although
none of the traditional tests is completely satisfactory, the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows differences in groups for
my fake data (in which one difference between groups is rather large).



set.seed(123)
x1 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .2), 3)
x2 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .25), 3)
x3 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .35), 3)
sd(x1); sd(x2); sd(x3)
[1] 10.30572
[1] 6.218724
[1] 6.483086


Sample standard deviations differ, and box plots show different
dispersions along with different locations.



x = c(x1, x2, x3)
g = as.factor(rep(1:3, each=20))
boxplot(x ~ g, notch=T, col="skyblue2")


enter image description here



Notches in the sides of the boxes are nonparametric
confidence intervals calibrated so that, comparing
two groups, CIs that overlap suggest no significant
difference. So the first and last groups may differ significantly.



Kruskal-Wallis test, with ad hoc Wilcoxon comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis test detects differences among the
three groups.



kruskal.test(x ~ g)

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data: x by g
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 13.269,
df = 2, p-value = 0.001314


Ad hoc tests with two-sample Wilcoxon tests show significant differences between groups 1 and 3. P-values for the other two comparisons are not small enough to satisfy the Bonferroni criterion
against false discovery.



wilcox.test(x1,x2)$p.val
[1] 0.01674239
wilcox.test(x2,x3)$
p.val
[1] 0.06343245
wilcox.test(x1,x3)$p.val
[1] 0.000667562


Welch one-factor ANOVA with ad hoc Welch t comparisons. Here we have moderately large samples and only moderate
skewness. A Welch one-way ANOVA, which does not
assume equal variances may be useful. The overall test gives a highly significant result; you could use Welch two-sample t tests for ad hoc comparisons.



oneway.test(x ~ g)

One-way analysis of means
(not assuming equal variances)

data: x and g
F = 6.905, num df = 2.000, denom df = 36.733,
p-value = 0.002847


Permutation test focused on differences among group means. Finally, a permutation test with the standard deviation
of the three (permuted) group means as 'metric', shows a significant difference. This metric focuses on differences among group means. The test is nonparametric. The P-value 0.0008 is similar to that of the
Kruskal-Wallis test.



d.obs = sd(c(mean(x1),mean(x2),mean(x3)))
set.seed(915)
m = 10^5; d.prm = numeric(m)
for(i in 1:m)
x.prm = sample(x) # scrambe obs among gps
a1=mean(x.prm[1:20]); a2=mean(x.prm[21:40]); a3=mean(x.prm[41:60])
d.prm[i] = sd(c(a1,a1,a3))
mean(d.prm >= d.obs)
[1] 0.00075
length(unique(d.prm))
[1] 77417


Of the 100,000 iterations there were over 77,000
uniquely different values of d.prm. Their histogram
is shown below along with the value 5.235 of d.obs.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    3 hours ago













3














3










3







$begingroup$

Comment:



Simulated gamma data Here are simulated gamma data to illustrate some of the points in BenBolker's Answer (+1). Although
none of the traditional tests is completely satisfactory, the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows differences in groups for
my fake data (in which one difference between groups is rather large).



set.seed(123)
x1 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .2), 3)
x2 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .25), 3)
x3 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .35), 3)
sd(x1); sd(x2); sd(x3)
[1] 10.30572
[1] 6.218724
[1] 6.483086


Sample standard deviations differ, and box plots show different
dispersions along with different locations.



x = c(x1, x2, x3)
g = as.factor(rep(1:3, each=20))
boxplot(x ~ g, notch=T, col="skyblue2")


enter image description here



Notches in the sides of the boxes are nonparametric
confidence intervals calibrated so that, comparing
two groups, CIs that overlap suggest no significant
difference. So the first and last groups may differ significantly.



Kruskal-Wallis test, with ad hoc Wilcoxon comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis test detects differences among the
three groups.



kruskal.test(x ~ g)

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data: x by g
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 13.269,
df = 2, p-value = 0.001314


Ad hoc tests with two-sample Wilcoxon tests show significant differences between groups 1 and 3. P-values for the other two comparisons are not small enough to satisfy the Bonferroni criterion
against false discovery.



wilcox.test(x1,x2)$p.val
[1] 0.01674239
wilcox.test(x2,x3)$
p.val
[1] 0.06343245
wilcox.test(x1,x3)$p.val
[1] 0.000667562


Welch one-factor ANOVA with ad hoc Welch t comparisons. Here we have moderately large samples and only moderate
skewness. A Welch one-way ANOVA, which does not
assume equal variances may be useful. The overall test gives a highly significant result; you could use Welch two-sample t tests for ad hoc comparisons.



oneway.test(x ~ g)

One-way analysis of means
(not assuming equal variances)

data: x and g
F = 6.905, num df = 2.000, denom df = 36.733,
p-value = 0.002847


Permutation test focused on differences among group means. Finally, a permutation test with the standard deviation
of the three (permuted) group means as 'metric', shows a significant difference. This metric focuses on differences among group means. The test is nonparametric. The P-value 0.0008 is similar to that of the
Kruskal-Wallis test.



d.obs = sd(c(mean(x1),mean(x2),mean(x3)))
set.seed(915)
m = 10^5; d.prm = numeric(m)
for(i in 1:m)
x.prm = sample(x) # scrambe obs among gps
a1=mean(x.prm[1:20]); a2=mean(x.prm[21:40]); a3=mean(x.prm[41:60])
d.prm[i] = sd(c(a1,a1,a3))
mean(d.prm >= d.obs)
[1] 0.00075
length(unique(d.prm))
[1] 77417


Of the 100,000 iterations there were over 77,000
uniquely different values of d.prm. Their histogram
is shown below along with the value 5.235 of d.obs.



enter image description here






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Comment:



Simulated gamma data Here are simulated gamma data to illustrate some of the points in BenBolker's Answer (+1). Although
none of the traditional tests is completely satisfactory, the
Kruskal-Wallis test shows differences in groups for
my fake data (in which one difference between groups is rather large).



set.seed(123)
x1 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .2), 3)
x2 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .25), 3)
x3 = round(rgamma(20, 5, .35), 3)
sd(x1); sd(x2); sd(x3)
[1] 10.30572
[1] 6.218724
[1] 6.483086


Sample standard deviations differ, and box plots show different
dispersions along with different locations.



x = c(x1, x2, x3)
g = as.factor(rep(1:3, each=20))
boxplot(x ~ g, notch=T, col="skyblue2")


enter image description here



Notches in the sides of the boxes are nonparametric
confidence intervals calibrated so that, comparing
two groups, CIs that overlap suggest no significant
difference. So the first and last groups may differ significantly.



Kruskal-Wallis test, with ad hoc Wilcoxon comparisons. A Kruskal-Wallis test detects differences among the
three groups.



kruskal.test(x ~ g)

Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data: x by g
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 13.269,
df = 2, p-value = 0.001314


Ad hoc tests with two-sample Wilcoxon tests show significant differences between groups 1 and 3. P-values for the other two comparisons are not small enough to satisfy the Bonferroni criterion
against false discovery.



wilcox.test(x1,x2)$p.val
[1] 0.01674239
wilcox.test(x2,x3)$
p.val
[1] 0.06343245
wilcox.test(x1,x3)$p.val
[1] 0.000667562


Welch one-factor ANOVA with ad hoc Welch t comparisons. Here we have moderately large samples and only moderate
skewness. A Welch one-way ANOVA, which does not
assume equal variances may be useful. The overall test gives a highly significant result; you could use Welch two-sample t tests for ad hoc comparisons.



oneway.test(x ~ g)

One-way analysis of means
(not assuming equal variances)

data: x and g
F = 6.905, num df = 2.000, denom df = 36.733,
p-value = 0.002847


Permutation test focused on differences among group means. Finally, a permutation test with the standard deviation
of the three (permuted) group means as 'metric', shows a significant difference. This metric focuses on differences among group means. The test is nonparametric. The P-value 0.0008 is similar to that of the
Kruskal-Wallis test.



d.obs = sd(c(mean(x1),mean(x2),mean(x3)))
set.seed(915)
m = 10^5; d.prm = numeric(m)
for(i in 1:m)
x.prm = sample(x) # scrambe obs among gps
a1=mean(x.prm[1:20]); a2=mean(x.prm[21:40]); a3=mean(x.prm[41:60])
d.prm[i] = sd(c(a1,a1,a3))
mean(d.prm >= d.obs)
[1] 0.00075
length(unique(d.prm))
[1] 77417


Of the 100,000 iterations there were over 77,000
uniquely different values of d.prm. Their histogram
is shown below along with the value 5.235 of d.obs.



enter image description here







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 5 hours ago









BruceETBruceET

14.6k1 gold badge10 silver badges30 bronze badges




14.6k1 gold badge10 silver badges30 bronze badges














  • $begingroup$
    Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
    $endgroup$
    – BruceET
    3 hours ago















$begingroup$
Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
$endgroup$
– Dave
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Standard deviation (or variance) of the means is super clever! Do you have any references that explore this more? My first thought when I saw this question was to permute the group labels, but I was at a loss for what the test statistic would be with more than two groups (can’t take the difference between two means).
$endgroup$
– Dave
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
That may be a left-over idea of Bill Kruskal's from back in the 1960's. Good references for permutations tests seem scarce. I co-authored a fairly elementary paper on permutations tests pub in ASA's J. or Statistics Educ. several years back. L. Eudey was first author. // Also, there are some interesting pages on this site. Dinner time now, but I'll google around later and report any successes.
$endgroup$
– BruceET
3 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f427383%2fnon-parametric-test-for-samples-with-unequal-variance-for-3-or-more-samples%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

199年 目錄 大件事 到箇年出世嗰人 到箇年死嗰人 節慶、風俗習慣 導覽選單