Re: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-31 Thread Rich Ulrich
- I can address a couple of concrete points - On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:22:43 GMT, Gene Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < snip > > The real problem that we often see is a dataset composed of lots of zeros > with a few positive values. From the literature, especially Hollander & > Wolfe, I

Re: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-27 Thread Thom Baguley
Gene Gallagher wrote: > The real problem that we often see is a dataset composed of lots of zeros > with a few positive values. From the literature, especially Hollander & > Wolfe, I know that a high percentage of ties poses problems for procedures > based on ranks (even with the ties procedures).

Re: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-25 Thread Gene Gallagher
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I'm using Ramsey & Schafer's (R&S) "Statistical Sleuth" as a text for my grad environmental stats class. They do a very good job of presenting methods for analyzing outliers and the skewness of the distribution(s) prior to using the t test or ANOVA. R & S do

Re: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-24 Thread Rich Ulrich
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:15:52 GMT, Gene Gallagher < snip, good summary of some issues > > SO, my question is "What is the current thinking on the robustness of > the Kruskal-Wallis test for testing groups with very different > variances?" Is Underwood right in his assessment that the nonparametr

Re: Normality & parametric tests (WAS: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances)

2000-03-24 Thread Bruce Weaver
On 24 Mar 2000, Bernard Higgins wrote: > These are my thoughts: > > The sampling distribution of a test statistic is determined by the > null hypothesis. So analysis of variance is used to test that a > number of samples come from an identical Normal distribution > against the alternative that

Re: Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-24 Thread Bernard Higgins
Hi Gene > I'd just finished telling my class that when the assumption of > homogeneity of variances is violated, use the Kruskal-Wallis test > instead of the parametric equivalent. > One student pointed out to me afterwards that Underwood (1997, p. 131, > Experiments in Ecology) states that the

Kruskal-Wallis & equal variances

2000-03-23 Thread Gene Gallagher
I'd just finished telling my class that when the assumption of homogeneity of variances is violated, use the Kruskal-Wallis test instead of the parametric equivalent. One student pointed out to me afterwards that Underwood (1997, p. 131, Experiments in Ecology) states that the K-W test also assume