Type 1 Error Rate of Some Normality Tests
Article Sidebar
Page Numbers:
275-285
Digital Object Identifier:
10.58578/mikailalsys.v3i1.5234
Viewed: 304 times
Downloaded: 189 times
LYAS Publisher cordially invites qualified professionals to serve as Editors or Reviewers. Your expertise will make an important contribution to maintaining and strengthening the academic quality of our publications. Interested applicants are kindly requested to complete the application form at the following link: Editors & Reviewers
Please feel free to contact us if you need any further information about the submission process or if you have any additional questions.
Authors:Ademola Abiodun Adetunji1*
Copyright :Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Most Statistical procedures require normality of data for a reasonable interpretation and inference. Failure of this assumption invariably undermines the applicability of such data. Using a statistical method that requires normality of the data when the data is not normal will lead to misleading inference. Quite a number of procedures exist in literature in verifying the normality assumption. This paper examines simulated 10,000 normally distributed data and assessed them for normality using Anderson-Darling test (AD-test), Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test) and Shapiro-Wilk test (SW-test). The results of the analysis show that AD-test outperforms the other two tests. However, for sample size 20 or less, KS-test outperforms the rest. The sum of ranks of type 1 error rate showed that the AD-test is the best because it has the lowest rank sum. It is followed by the KS-test and the SW- test has the largest sum of ranks and hence the poorest. The type 1 error rate of each test does not show any consistent pattern as the sample size increases. Hence, it can be inferred that sample size does not have significant impact on the type I error of a test.
Citation Metrics:
Downloads
Citation Metrics & Similar Scopus Articles
-
Afrouz M. (2027)Automatic Detection of Grammatical Errors in English Translations: Assessing the Efficacy and Suggesting Some Recommendations for Boosting Grammarly SoftwareLanguage Related Research, 17(4), 1-33
-
Naemi Z. (2027)The Relationship between Second Language Learning Strategies, Learning Engagement, and Writing Skill in the Arabic Writing CurriculumLanguage Related Research, 17(4), 331-360
-
Najafi E. (2027)Analyzing the process of dynamic and tense discourse systems in the poem "katibeh" of Akhavan salesLanguage Related Research, 17(4), 263-291
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
References
Ademuyiwa, J. A., Sabri, S. R. M., & Adetunji, A. A. (2023). Modelling Count Variables: A Comparative Analysis of two Discretization Techniques. Asian Journal of Probability and Statistics, 25(2): 37-51. 10.9734/AJPAS/2023/v25i2551
Adetunji, A. A. & Sabri, S. R. M. (2023). An Alternative Count Distribution for Modelling Dispersed Observations, Pertanika Journal of Science and Technology, 31(3), 1587–1603. 10.47836/pjst.31.3.25
Althouse, L.A., Ware, W.B. & Ferron, J.M. (1998). Detecting Departures from Normality: A Monte Carlo Simulation of A New Omnibus Test based on Moments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Anderson, T.W. & Darling, D.A. (1954). A Test of Goodness of Fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49(268), 765-769.
Arshad, M., Rasool, M.T. & Ahmad, M.I. (2003). Anderson Darling and Modified Anderson Darling Tests for Generalized Pareto Distribution. Pakistan Journal of Applied Sciences, 3(2), 85-88.
Conover, W.J. (1999). Practical Nonparametric Statistics. Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 428-433.
D’ Agostino, R.B. & Stephens, M.A. (1986). Goodness-of-fit Techniques, NewYork: Marcel Dekker.
Dufour J.M., Farhat, A., Gardiol, L. & Khalaf, L. (1998). Simulation-based Finite Sample Normality Tests in Linear Regressions. Econometrics Journal, 1, 154-173.
Farrel, P.J. & Stewart, K.R. (2006). Comprehensive Study Of Tests For Normality And Symmetry: Extending The Spiegelhalter Test. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 76(9), 9803–816.
Kolmogorov, A.N. (1933). Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge di distribuzione, Giornale dell’ Instituto Italiano degli Attuari 4, 83–91.
Mendes, M. & Pala, A. (2003). Type I Error Rate and Power of Three Normality Tests. Pakistan Journal of Information and Technology, 2(2), 135-139.
Nornadiah, M.R. & Bee, W.Y. (2011): Power Comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling Tests, Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21-33
Park, H.M. (2008). Univariate Analysis and Normality Test Using SAS, Stata, and SPSS. Technical Working Paper. The University Information Technology Services (UITS) Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing, Indiana University.
Royston, P. (1995). Remark AS R94:A Remark on Algorithm AS181:The W-test for Normality. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 44(4), 547-551.
Seier, E. (2002). Comparison of Tests for Univariate Normality. InterStat Statistical Journal, 1, 1-17.
Shapiro, S.S. & Wilk, M.B. (1965). An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611. 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591