Non-parametric methods are employed with populations that measure a ranked sequence ( for illustration, movie reappraisals acquiring one to four stars ) . The usage of non-parametric schemes might be needed whenever information has no obvious statistical significance. Since non-parametric attacks generate a lesser figure of premises, their pertinence is significantly broader compared to the fiting parametric methods. In peculiar, Non-parametric trials are applied in state of affairss where lupus erythematosus is known about the experiment in inquiry. Specifically, non-parametric methods were developed to be used in instances when the research worker knows small about the parametric quantities of the variable of involvement in the population. In more proficient footings, non-parametric methods do non trust on the appraisal of parametric quantities ( such as the mean or the standard divergence ) depicting the distribution of the variable of involvement in the population. This paper analyzes different sets of informations utilizing non-parametric methods.

Non-Parametric Procedures

Part A. Questions about non-parametric processs

1. What are the most common grounds you would choose a non-parametric trial over the parametric option?

Nonparametric, or distribution free trials are alleged because the premises underlying their usage are fewer and weaker than those associated with parametric trials. To set it another manner, nonparametric trials require few if any premises about the forms of the implicit in population distributions. For this ground, they are frequently used in topographic point of parametric trials if/when the research worker feels that the premises of the parametric trial have been excessively grossly violated. Another ground is that the result is a rank or a mark and the population is clearly non Gaussian. Sometimes, some values are ‘off the graduated table ‘ , that is, excessively high or excessively low to step. Even if the population is Gaussian, it is impossible to analyse such informations with a parametric trial since the research worker does non cognize all of the values. Besides, when the informations are measurings, and the research worker is certain that the population is non distributed in a Gaussian mode.

2. Discourse the issue of statistical power in non-parametric trials ( as compared to their parametric opposite numbers ) . Which type tends to be more powerful? Why?

Statistical power of non-parametric trials are lower than that of their parametric opposite number. The nonparametric trials lack statistical power with little samples. When you use a nonparametric trial with little samples and with informations from a Gaussian population, the P values tend to be excessively high. In general, the most of import constituent impacting statistical power is sample size in the sense that the most often asked inquiry in pattern is how many observations need to be collected. In fact, there is a small room to alter a trial size ( significance degree ) since conventional.05 or.01 degrees are widely used. It is hard to command consequence sizes in many instances. It is dearly-won and time-consuming to acquire more observations, of class. However, if excessively many observations are used ( or if a trial is excessively powerful with a big sample size ) , even a fiddling consequence will be erroneously detected as a important 1. Therefore, virtually anything can be proved irrespective of existent effects. By contrast, if excessively few observations are used, a hypothesis trial will be weak and less convincing. Consequently, there may be small opportunity to observe a meaningful consequence even when it exists at that place. Statistical power analysis frequently answers these inquiries. What is the statistical power of a trial, given N, consequence size, and trial size? At least how many observations are needed for a trial, given consequence size, trial size, and statistical power?

2. What non-parametric trial to utilize?

Non-parametric trials do non presume an implicit in Normal ( bell-shaped ) distribution. Therefore, there are two general state of affairss when non-parametric trials are used:

a. Data is nominal or ordinal ( discrepancy can non be calculated ) .

B. The information does non fulfill other premises underlying parametric trials.

The pick of a non-parametric trial to utilize for the research worker can be easier to find and execute by utilizing the following tabular array as a usher:

Part B. SPSS Activity

In this portion the research worker will execute the non-parametric version of the trials used in old activities. In each instance. the premise is to choose to utilize the non-parametric equivalent instead than the parametric trial.

1. Activity 5a: Gestural trial and Wilcoxon ‘s matched pairs trial.

The first subdivision gives the descriptive statistics for the dependant variable for each degree of the independent variable. In this illustration, there were 40 people ( N ) in each status. The pre trial pupils gave a average liking evaluation of 40.15 with a standard divergence of 8.304 ( although this figure may non be meaningful in this illustration as standard divergence is non a valid statistic for an ordinally scaled variable. ) The station trial pupils gave a average liking evaluation of 43.35 with a standard divergence of 9.598

The 2nd subdivision of the end product shows the ranks for the Wilcoxon trial. It gives the figure of observations ( N ) , 9, in which the post-test pupils did better than their matched opposite number ( The Negative Ranks row ) . It besides gives the figure of observations, 28, in which the post-test pupils did better than their matched opposite numbers ( the Positive Ranks row. ) Finally, it gives the figure of observations, 3, in which the post-test pupils got the same mark as their matched opposite numbers in the pre-test ( the Ties row. ) .

The 3rd subdivision of the end product gives the values of the Wilcoxon trial. The P value associated with the Wilcoxon trial is given at the intersection of the row labeled Asymp. Sig. ( 2-tailed ) ( asymptotic significance, 2-tailed ) and the column labeled with the difference of the variables that correspond to the agencies in the hypothesis ( e.g. Wishing Rating for post-test – Wishing Rating for pre-test. In this illustration, the P value for the Wilcoxon trial is.001.

This subdivision of the end product is similar to the ranks subdivision. It is produced for the mark trial, while the ranks subdivision is produced for the Wilcoxon trial. It gives the figure of observations ( N ) , 9, in which the post-testdid better than their matched opposite number ( the Negative Differences row ) . It besides gives the figure of observations, 28, in which the post-test pupils di than their matched opposite numbers ( the Positive Differences row ) . Finally, it gives the figure of observations, 3, in which the post-test pupils got the same scores their matched opposite numbers in the pre-test ( the Ties row. )

The concluding subdivision of the end product gives the values of the Sign trial. The P value associated with the mark trial is given at the intersection of the row labeled Exact Sig. ( 2-tailed ) and the column labeled with the difference of the variables that correspond to the agencies in the hypothesis ( e.g. Wishing Rating for post-test – Wishing Rating for pres-test. ) In this illustration, the P value for the mark trial is.003.

2. Activity 5b: non-parametric version of the independent t-test utilizing Mann-Whitney trial.

The first subdivision gives the descriptive statistics for the dependant variable and ( less usefully ) for the independent variable. In this illustration, there were 80 people ( N ) who took a pre-test and a post-test. They have a average mark of 41.75 with a standard divergence of 9.062 ( although this figure may non be meaningful in this illustration, as standard divergence is non a valid statistic for an ordinally scaled variable. )

The 2nd subdivision of the end product shows the figure ( N ) of people in each status ( 40 ) . ( 40 pre-test and 40 post-test ) and the average rank and amount of ranks for each group ( utile if the resercher were ciphering the U statistic by manus. )

The concluding subdivision of the end product gives the values of the Mann-Whitney U trial ( and several other trials as good. ) The ascertained Mann-Whitney U value is given at the intersection of the row labeled Mann-Whitney U and the column labeled with the dependant variable ( mark received in trial ) In this illustration, the Mann-Whitney U value is 629.0. There are two p values given, one on the row labeled Asymp. Sig ( 2-Tailed ) and the other on the row labeled Exact Sig. [ 2* ( 1- tailed Sig. ) ] . Typically, the research worker will utilize the exact significance, although if the sample size is big, the asymptotic significance value can be used to derive a small statistical power.

3. Activity 5c: non-parametric version of the individual factor ANOVA.

This is a really utile tabular array as it can be used to show descriptive statistics in the research workers consequences subdivision for each of the clip points or conditions ( depending on yourthe survey design ) for the dependant variable.

The Friedman Test compares the average ranks between the related groups and indicates how the groups differed and it is included for this ground. However, the research worker is non really likely to really describe these values in the consequences subdivision but most likely will describe the average value for each related group.

The above tabular array provides the trial statistic ( ? 2 ) value ( Chi-square ) , grades of freedom ( df ) and the significance degree ( Asymp. Sig. ) , which is all the research worker needs to describe the consequence of the Friedman Test. There is an overall statistically important difference between the average ranks of the related groups. It is of import to observe that the Friedman Test is an omnibus trial like its parametric option. It tells the research worker whether there are overall differences but does non nail which groups in peculiar differ from each other. To make this the research worker needs to run post-hoc trials.

The above tabular array provides the trial statistic ( ? 2 ) value ( Chi-square ) , grades of freedom ( df ) and the significance degree ( Asymp. Sig. ) , which is all we need to describe the consequence of the Friedman Test. The research worker can see that there is an overall statistically important difference between the average ranks of the related groups. It is of import to observe that the Friedman Test is an omnibus trial like its parametric alternate – that is, it tells the research worker whether there are overall differences but does non nail which groups in peculiar differ from each other. To make this post-hoc trials are necessary.

The research worker can describe the Friedman Test consequence as follows: There was a statistically important difference in sensed systolic blood force per unit area depending on where the trial was taken, ? 2 ( 2 ) = 60, P = 0.000. The average values could besides be included for each of the related groups. However, at this phase, the research worker merely knows that there are differences someplace between the related groups but you do non cognize precisely where those differences lie.

4. Activity 6: non-parametric version of the factorial ANOVA

( Note ) Harmonizing to IBM Support Department at hypertext transfer protocol: //www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss? uid=swg21487416 there are no options for nonparametric factorial ANOVA theoretical accounts in SPSS. Possibly a solution would be to divide the groups and execute One-way ANOVA ( independent ) by utilizing Kruskal-Wallis analysis of ranks and the Median trial on each group.

Part C. Contingency Tables

Sometimes a research worker is merely interested in the followers: Whether two variables are dependent on one another, ( e.g. are decease and smoke dependent variables ; are SAT tonss and high school classs independent variables? ) . To prove this type of claim the research worker uses a eventuality tabular array, with the void hypothesis being that the variables are independent. In a eventuality tabular array the rows are one variable the columns another. In eventuality table analysis ( besides called two-way ANOVA ) the research worker determines how closely the sum in each cell coincides with the expected value of each cell if the two variables were independent.

The undermentioned eventuality table lists the response to a measure refering to gun control.

Cell 1 indicates that 10 people in the Northeast were in favour of the measure.

In the old eventuality tabular array, 40 out of 160 ( 1/4 ) of those surveyed were from the Northeast. If the two variables were independent, the research worker would anticipate 1/2 of that sum ( 20 ) to be in favour of the amendment since there were merely two picks. The research worker would be look intoing to see if the ascertained value of 10 was significantly different from the expected value of 20.

To find how close the expected values are to the existent values, the trial statistic chi-square is determined. Small values of chi-square support the claim of independency between the two variables. That is, chi-square will be little when observed and expected frequences are close. Large values of chi-square would do the void hypothesis to be rejected and reflect important differences between observed and expected frequences.

The Case Processing Summary represents what per centum was involved in the analysis, as there is losing informations. In this study, merely 65 % of the information was accounted for or 927 participants out of the 1419. The missing instances ( 34.7 % ) did non reply the inquiries or participated and were non included in the analysis.

The crosstabulation tabular array shows the dislocation in cells of the count of each respondent ‘s highest grade and life is go outing or dull. The research worker can find which group has the most exiting life ( High School ) , the everyday life ( High School ) and the dullest life ( High School ) . High school pupils seem to hold more exiting, everyday and dull lives. Therefore, there seems to be an association between degree of instruction and life being go outing or dull. The research worker can besides see the values per instruction degree of each group every bit good. The entire column helps the research worker determine the figure of instances per class every bit good i.e. The largest tested group were high school pupils, N= 483, and the lesser group were Junior college pupils N=59. This would impact the void hypothesis ; accordingly, the Chi-Square Trials are necessary to find the cogency of the hull hypothesis.

The Person Chi-Square has a value of 39.428. The Sig. being less than.05 indicates that there is a statistical significance between degree of instruction and life being. It is statistically unlikely that the difference the research worker sees has occurred by opportunity. This tests a void hypothesis saying that the frequence distribution of certain events observed in a sample is consistent with a peculiar theoretical distribution. The events considered are reciprocally sole and have entire chance 1.Therefore, in a larger population the consequences would be the same as in the sample population. The research worker can non reject the nothing that instruction and perceptual experience of life are independent.