Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T10:09:54.633Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Several k Sample Tests for Ordered Alternatives in Completely Randomized Designs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Mark L. Berenson
Mark L. Berenson*
Affiliation:
Baruch College, Cuny
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Mark L. Berenson, Department of Statistics and Computer Information Systems, Baruch ColIege-CUNY, 17 Lexington Avenue, New York City, New York 10010.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of appropriate test selection for a given research endeavor cannot be overemphasized. Using samples drawn from eleven populations (differing in shape, peakedness, and density in the tails), this study investigates the small sample empirical powers of nine k-sample tests against ordered location alternatives under completely randomized designs. The results then are intended to aid the researcher in the selection of a particular procedure appropriate for a given endeavor. To highlight this an industrial psychology application involving work productivity is presented.

Keywords

Monte Carlo studypowerrobustnessk-sample testsordered alternatives

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , September 1982, pp. 265 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Research was supported in part by the Scholastic Assistance Program, Baruch College. The author wishes to thank Professors Matthew Goldstein, Shulamith Gross, David Levine, and Edward Wolf for their helpful comments when writing this paper. In addition, the author wishes to thank the referees and editor for their useful suggestions for improving the paper.

References

Abelson, R. P., & Tukey, J. W. Efficient utilization of non-numerical information in quantitative analysis: General theory and the case of simple order. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1963, 34, 1347–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. A test of homogeneity for ordered alternatives. Biometrika, 1959, 46, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. A test of homogeneity for ordered alternatives: II. Biometrika, 1959, 46, 328–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. Ordered tests in the analysis of variance. Biometrika, 1961, 48, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, D. J. A test of homogeneity of means under restricted alternatives (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1961, 23, 239–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenson, M. L. A Monte Carlo study of the power of severalk sample tests for ordered alternatives. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, The City University of New York, 1974.Google Scholar
Berenson, M. L. A usefulk sample test for monotonic relationships in completely randomized designs. SCIMA—Journal of Management Science & Applied Cybernetics, 1976, 5, 2–16.Google Scholar
Berenson, M. L. A simple distribution-free test for trend in one-way layouts. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1978, 38, 905–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenson, M. L. & Gross, S. T. Designing completely randomized experiments to detect ordered treatment effects: An empirical study. Communications in Statistics, 1981, B10, 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunk, H. D. On the estimation of parameters restricted by inequalities. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1958, 29, 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chacko, V. J. Testing homogeneity against ordered alternatives. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1963, 34, 945–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. R., & Stuart, A. Some quick sign tests for trend in location and dispersion. Biometrika, 1955, 42, 80–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, T. S. Robustness of theF-test to errors of both kinds and the correlation between the numerator and denominator of theF-ratio. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1968, 63, 660–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. Statistical tables for biological, agricultural, and medical research, 6th ed., New York: Hafner Publishing Company, 1963.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. D. Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis, 1976, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hahn, G. J., & Shapiro, S. S. Statisticalmodels in engineering, 1967, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
Harter, H. L. Expected values of normal order statistics. Biometrika, 1961, 48, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundal, P. S. Knowledge of performance as an incentive in repetitive industrial work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1969, 53, 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries. Reference Manual Edition 7 (IMSL LIB-0007), Houston: IMSL, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
Jogdeo, K. On randomized rank score procedures of Bell and Doksum. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1966, 37, 1697–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. A., & Mehrotra, K. G. Somec-sample nonparametric tests for ordered alternatives. Journal of the Indian Statistical Association, 1971, 9, 8–23.Google Scholar
Jonckheere, A. R. A distribution-freek-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika, 1954, 41, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeil, D. R. Interactive data analysis, 1977, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc..Google Scholar
Mendenhall, W., & Reinmuth, J. E. Statistics for management and economics, 1971, Belmont, California: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Miles, R. E. The complete amalgamation in blocks, by weighted means of a finite set of real numbers. Biometrika, 1959, 46, 317–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, E. S., & Hartley, H. O. Biometrika tables for statisticians, Volume I, 1954, Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. Tables of the incomplete beta function, 1956, Cambridge, England: University Press.Google Scholar
Puri, M. L. Some distribution-freek sample rank tests of homogeneity against ordered alternatives. Communications On Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1965, 18, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F. L. Small sample power functions for nonparametric tests of location in the double exponential family. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1971, 66, 149–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods, 5th ed., Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. Exploratory data analysis, 1977, Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd. ed., New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.Google Scholar