Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOHN S. LOUCKS
St. Edwards University
Chapter 19
Nonparametric Methods
Sign Test
Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Rank Correlation
Nonparametric Methods
Nonparametric Methods
Sign Test
Hypotheses
H0: No preference for one brand over the other
exists
Ha: A preference for one brand over the other
exists
Sampling distribution
Sampling Distribution
of the number of +
values if there is no
brand preference
2.74
= 15 = .5(30)
7
Rejection Rule
Using .05 level of significance,
Reject H0 if z < -1.96 or z > 1.96
Test Statistic
z = (18 - 15)/2.74 = 3/2.74 = 1.095
Conclusion
Do not reject H0. There is insufficient
evidence in the sample to conclude that a
difference in preference exists for the two
brands of peanut butter.
Fewer than 10 or more than 20 individuals
would have to have a preference for a
particular brand in order for us to reject H0.
8
Sign.
13
Hypotheses
H0: The delivery times of the two services are
the
same; neither offers faster service than the
other.
Ha: Delivery times differ between the two
services;
Sampling distribution
of T the
if populations
recommend the one
with
smaller
times.
19.62 are identical
Sampling Distribution
T = 0
T
14
Rejection Rule
Using .05 level of significance,
Reject H0 if z < -1.96 or z > 1.96
Test Statistic
z = (T - T )/T = (44 - 0)/19.62 = 2.24
Conclusion
Reject H0. There is sufficient evidence in
the sample to conclude that a difference exists
in the delivery times provided by the two
services. Recommend using the NiteFlite
service.
15
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test
16
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test
17
18
Brand-X
19
20
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test:
Large-Sample Case
21
Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Test:
Large-Sample Case
T = 1n1(n1 + n2 + 1)
Standard Deviation
Distribution Form
Approximately normal, provided
n1 > 10 and n2 > 10
T 112n1n2(n1 n2 1)
22
Rank
12
Brand-X
$56.10
54.70
54.40
55.40
15.5
10
17
54.10
56.00
55.50
23
T = 105 =1/2(10)(21)
24
Rejection Rule
Using .05 level of significance,
Reject H0 if z < -1.96 or z > 1.96
Test Statistic
z = (T - T )/T = (86.5 - 105)/13.23 = -1.40
Conclusion
Do not reject H0. There is insufficient
evidence in the sample data to conclude that
there is a difference in the annual energy cost
associated with the two brands of freezers.
25
Kruskal-Wallis Test
Rank Correlation
Rank Correlation
6 di2
n(n2 1)
28
29
Rank Correlation
Mean
Standard Deviation
rs 0
1
rs
n 1
Distribution Form
Approximately normal, provided n > 10
30
Rank Correlation
Connor Investors provides a portfolio
management service for its clients. Two of
Connors analysts rated ten investments from
high (6) to low (1) risk as shown below. Use
rank correlation, with = .10, to comment on
the agreement of the two analysts ratings.
Investment
Analyst #1
Analyst #2
A B C D E F G H I
J
1 4 9 8 6 3 5 7 2 10
1 5 6 2 9 7 3 10 4 8
31
Investment
(Differ.)2
A 1 1 0
B 4 5 -1
C 9 6 3
D 8 2 6
E 6 9 -3
F 3 7 -4
G 5 3 2
H 7 10 -3
I 2 4 -2
J 10 8 2
Analyst #1 Analyst #2
Rating
Rating
Differ.
0
1
9
36
9
16
4
9
4
4
Sum =
92
32
Hypotheses
H0: ps = 0 (No rank correlation exists.)
Ha: ps = 0 (Rank correlation exists.)
Sampling Distribution
Sampling distribution of
rs under the assumption
of no rank correlation
1
rs
.333
10 1
r = 0
rs
33
Rejection Rule
Using .10 level of significance,
Reject H0 if z < -1.645 or z > 1.645
Test Statistic
6 di2
6(92)
rs 1
1
0.4424
2
n(n 1)
10(100 1)
z = (rs - r )/r = (.4424 - 0)/.3333 = 1.33
Conclusion
Do no reject H0. There is not a significant
rank correlation. The two analysts are not
showing agreement in their rating of the risk
associated with the different investments.
34
End of Chapter 19
35