Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules

In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally h...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Statistics surveys 2010, Vol.4 (none), p.1-39
Hauptverfasser: Fay, Michael P, Proschan, Michael A
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 39
container_issue none
container_start_page 1
container_title Statistics surveys
container_volume 4
creator Fay, Michael P
Proschan, Michael A
description In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.
doi_str_mv 10.1214/09-SS051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2857732</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835545239</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-b80f94d5206129a726e4b2df05a5b1aed5330a9f10fd9aa82f723da0bfc6d4ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkU1v1jAMxyPExMZA4hOgHLkU8to2FxCaeJM27TDQjpHbJDxBbVLiFO359uvYGNvJtvzz37b-hLzi7C0XXL1jprm4YJo_IUfcSN10mrdPH-SH5DniL8a0EYo_I4eCKa5UJ44IXsZpzFc5NWeQUnO5izX5Pc2F1qZ6rB_oeaKAuM5LjTkhDVtrt19y3XmMSG8YpJAcndepxmXyNKbqy1J8hduJHKjzY8StoGWdPL4gBwEm9C_v4jH58fnT95Ovzen5l28nH0-bUbV9bYaeBaOcFqzlwkAnWq8G4QLToAcO3mkpGZjAWXAGoBehE9IBG8LYOgVOHpP3t7rLOszejT7VApNdSpyh7G2GaB93UtzZn_mPFb3uOik2gTd3AiX_XrdP7Rxx9NMEyecVLe-l1koLaf6jY8mIxYf7NZzZG48sM_avRxv6-uFZ9-A_U-Q1XLiQOw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1835545239</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules</title><source>Project Euclid Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Project Euclid Complete</source><creator>Fay, Michael P ; Proschan, Michael A</creator><creatorcontrib>Fay, Michael P ; Proschan, Michael A</creatorcontrib><description>In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1935-7516</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-7516</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1214/09-SS051</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20414472</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><ispartof>Statistics surveys, 2010, Vol.4 (none), p.1-39</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-b80f94d5206129a726e4b2df05a5b1aed5330a9f10fd9aa82f723da0bfc6d4ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-b80f94d5206129a726e4b2df05a5b1aed5330a9f10fd9aa82f723da0bfc6d4ad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20414472$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fay, Michael P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proschan, Michael A</creatorcontrib><title>Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules</title><title>Statistics surveys</title><addtitle>Stat Surv</addtitle><description>In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.</description><issn>1935-7516</issn><issn>1935-7516</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpVkU1v1jAMxyPExMZA4hOgHLkU8to2FxCaeJM27TDQjpHbJDxBbVLiFO359uvYGNvJtvzz37b-hLzi7C0XXL1jprm4YJo_IUfcSN10mrdPH-SH5DniL8a0EYo_I4eCKa5UJ44IXsZpzFc5NWeQUnO5izX5Pc2F1qZ6rB_oeaKAuM5LjTkhDVtrt19y3XmMSG8YpJAcndepxmXyNKbqy1J8hduJHKjzY8StoGWdPL4gBwEm9C_v4jH58fnT95Ovzen5l28nH0-bUbV9bYaeBaOcFqzlwkAnWq8G4QLToAcO3mkpGZjAWXAGoBehE9IBG8LYOgVOHpP3t7rLOszejT7VApNdSpyh7G2GaB93UtzZn_mPFb3uOik2gTd3AiX_XrdP7Rxx9NMEyecVLe-l1koLaf6jY8mIxYf7NZzZG48sM_avRxv6-uFZ9-A_U-Q1XLiQOw</recordid><startdate>2010</startdate><enddate>2010</enddate><creator>Fay, Michael P</creator><creator>Proschan, Michael A</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2010</creationdate><title>Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules</title><author>Fay, Michael P ; Proschan, Michael A</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c468t-b80f94d5206129a726e4b2df05a5b1aed5330a9f10fd9aa82f723da0bfc6d4ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fay, Michael P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proschan, Michael A</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Statistics surveys</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fay, Michael P</au><au>Proschan, Michael A</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules</atitle><jtitle>Statistics surveys</jtitle><addtitle>Stat Surv</addtitle><date>2010</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>none</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>39</epage><pages>1-39</pages><issn>1935-7516</issn><eissn>1935-7516</eissn><abstract>In a mathematical approach to hypothesis tests, we start with a clearly defined set of hypotheses and choose the test with the best properties for those hypotheses. In practice, we often start with less precise hypotheses. For example, often a researcher wants to know which of two groups generally has the larger responses, and either a t-test or a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (WMW) test could be acceptable. Although both t-tests and WMW tests are usually associated with quite different hypotheses, the decision rule and p-value from either test could be associated with many different sets of assumptions, which we call perspectives. It is useful to have many of the different perspectives to which a decision rule may be applied collected in one place, since each perspective allows a different interpretation of the associated p-value. Here we collect many such perspectives for the two-sample t-test, the WMW test and other related tests. We discuss validity and consistency under each perspective and discuss recommendations between the tests in light of these many different perspectives. Finally, we briefly discuss a decision rule for testing genetic neutrality where knowledge of the many perspectives is vital to the proper interpretation of the decision rule.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>20414472</pmid><doi>10.1214/09-SS051</doi><tpages>39</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1935-7516
ispartof Statistics surveys, 2010, Vol.4 (none), p.1-39
issn 1935-7516
1935-7516
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2857732
source Project Euclid Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Project Euclid Complete
title Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T09%3A45%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney%20or%20t-test?%20On%20assumptions%20for%20hypothesis%20tests%20and%20multiple%20interpretations%20of%20decision%20rules&rft.jtitle=Statistics%20surveys&rft.au=Fay,%20Michael%20P&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=none&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=39&rft.pages=1-39&rft.issn=1935-7516&rft.eissn=1935-7516&rft_id=info:doi/10.1214/09-SS051&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1835545239%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1835545239&rft_id=info:pmid/20414472&rfr_iscdi=true