The Power of the Test for the Winsorized Modified Alexander-Govern Test
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21512/comtech.v7i4.3764Keywords:
test power, Alexander-Govern (AG) test, the AGMOM test, AGWMOM testAbstract
This research examined the usage of the parametric method in comparing two or more means as independent group test, for instance, the Alexander-Govern (AG) test. The utilization of mean as the determinant for the center of distribution of variance diversity takes place in testing, and the test provides excellence in maintaining the amount of Type I error and giving immense sensitivity for a regular data. Unfortunately, it isineffective on irregular data, leading to the application of trimmed mean upon testing as the determinant for the center of distribution under irregular data for two group condition. However, as the group quantity is more than two, the estimator unsuccessfully provides excellence in maintaining the amount of Type I error. Therefore, an estimator high in effectiveness called the MOM estimator was introduced for the testing as the determinant for the center of distribution. Group quantity in a test does not affect the estimator, but it unsuccessfully provides
excellence in maintaining the amount of Type I error under intense asymmetry and unevenness. The application of Winsorized modified one-step M-estimator (WMOM) upon the Alexander-Govern testing takes place so that it can prevail against its drawbacks under irregular data in the presence of variance diversity, can eliminate the presence of the outside observation and can provide effectiveness for the testing on irregular data. Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) was used for the analysis of the tests. The results show that the AGWMOM test gave the most intense sensitivity under g = 0,5 and h = 0,5, for four group case and g = 0 and h = 0, under six group case, differing from three remaining tests and the sensitivity of the AG testing is said suffices and intense enough.
Plum Analytics
References
Abdullah, S., Yahaya, S. S. S., & Othman, A. R. (2007). Modified one step m-estimator as a central tendency measure for alexander-govern test. In Proceedings of The 9th Islamic Countries Conference on Statistical Sciences, 834-842.
Alexander, R. A., & Govern, D. M. (1994). A new and simpler approximation for ANOVA under variance heterogeneity. Journal of Education Statistics, 19(2), 91-101.
Algina, J., Oshima, T. C., & Lin, W-Y. (1994). Type I error rates for Welch’s Test and James’s secondorder test under nonnormality and inequality of variance when there are two groups. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 19(3), 275-291.
Brunner, E., Dette, H., & Munk, A. (1997). Box-type approximations in nonparametric factorial designs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92(440), 1494-1502.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani (1998). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
Hill, G. W (1970). Algorithm 395 student’s t-distribution. Communications of the ACM, 13, 617-619.
James, G. S. (1951). The comparison of several groups of observations when the ratios of the population variances are unknown. Biometrika, 38, 324-329.
Keselman, H. J., Kowalchuk, R. K., Algina, J., Lix, L. M., & Wilcox, R. R. (2000). Testing treatment effects in repeated measure designs: Trimmed means and bootstrapping. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 53, 175-191.
Krishnamoorthy, K., F., & Matthew, T. (2007). A parametric bootstrap approach for ANOVA with unequal variances: Fixed and random models. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51(12), 5731-5742.
Lix, Lisa, M., & Keselman, J.C., & Keselman, H. J (1996). Approximate degrees of freedom tests: A unified perspective on testing for mean equality. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 547-560.
Lix, L. M, & Keselman, H. J. (1998). To trim or not to trim. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(3), 409-429.
Luh, W. M., & Guo, J. H. (2005). Heteroscedastic test statistics for one-way analysis of variance: The trimmed means and Hall’s transformation conjunction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(1), 75-100. The Power of the Test … (Tobi Kingsley Ochuko, et al.) 323
Myers, L. (1998). Comparability of the James’ Second-Order approximation test and the Alexander and Govern: A statistic for Non-normal Heteroscedastic data. Journal of Statistical Simulation Computation, 60, 207-222.
Murphy, K. R., & Myors, B. (1998). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ochuko, T. K., Abdullah S., Zain, Z., & Yahaya, S. S. S., (2015). The modification and evaluation of the Alexander-Govern test in terms of power. Modern Applied Science, 9(13), 1-21.
Oshima, T. C., & J. Algina (1992). Type I error rates for James’s second-order test and Wilcoxon’s Hm test under heteroscedasticity and non-normality. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 255-263.
Othman, A. R., Keselman, H. J., Padmanabban, A. R., Wilcox, R. R., Wilcox, R. R., & Fradette, K. (2004). Comparing measures of the “typical” score across treatment groups. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical
Psycholofy, 57(2), 215-234.
Pardo, J. A, Pardo, M. C., Vincente, M. L., & Esteban, M. D. (1997). A statistical information theory approach to compare the homogeneity of several variances. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 24(4), 411-416. SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS/IML User’s Guide Version 8. Cary. NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Schneider, P. J., & Penfield, D. A. (1997). Alexander-Govern’s approximation: Providing an alternative to ANOVA under variance heterogeneity. Journal of Experimental Education,
(3), 271-287.
Welch, B. L. (1951). On the comparison of several means: An alternative approach. Biometrica, 38,
-336.
Wilcox, R. R. (1988). A new alternative to the ANOVA F and new results on James’s second-order method. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41, 109-117.
Wilcox, R. R. (1997). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilcox, R. R., & Keselman, H. J. (2003). Modern robust data analysis methods: Measures of central tendency. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 254-274.
Yahaya, S. S. S., Othman, A. R., & Keselman, H. J. (2006). Comparing the “typical score” across independent groups based on different criteria for trimming, Metodološki Zvezki, 3(1), 49-62.
Yusof, Z., Abdullah, S. & Yahaya, S. S. S. (2011). Type I error rates of Ft statistic with different trimming strategies for two groups case. Modern Applied Science, 5(4), 1-7.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License - Share Alike that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
USER RIGHTS
All articles published Open Access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. We are continuously working with our author communities to select the best choice of license options, currently being defined for this journal as follows:
