>> I see you still teach t-tests and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test - is >> this just an artefact of following Dalgaard, or do you have a >> preference for them over the (computational expensive but conceptually >> simpler) permutation tests? > > The nonparametric tests are there because they are described in > Peter's text. I skip them in my classes. > > I tend to use t-tests after examining normal probability plots and, > possibly, considering transformation. I believe they would be more > powerful than permutation tests but that may be incorrect. Can you > describe situations in which you would prefer permutation tests to > t-tests?
The basic argument I'm most familiar with is presented in: http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclastat/cts/tise/vol1/iss1/art1/ "My thesis is that both the content and the structure of our introductory curriculum are shaped by old history. What we teach was developed a little at a time, for reasons that had a lot to do with the need to use available theory to handle problems that were essentially computational. Almost one hundred years after Student published his 1908 paper on the t- test, we are still using 19th century analytical methods to solve what is essentially a technical problem – computing a p-value or a 95% margin of error. Intellectually, we are asking our students to do the equivalent of working with one of those old 30-pound Burroughs electric calculators with the rows of little wheels that clicked and spun as they churned out sums of squares." Hadley -- http://had.co.nz/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-teaching
