Advertisement

Computational Statistics

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 1309–1322 | Cite as

Tests of perfect judgment ranking using pseudo-samples

  • Saeid Amiri
  • Reza Modarres
  • Silvelyn Zwanzig
Original Paper
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

Ranked set sampling (RSS) is a sampling approach that can produce improved statistical inference when the ranking process is perfect. While some inferential RSS methods are robust to imperfect rankings, other methods may fail entirely or provide less efficiency. We develop a nonparametric procedure to assess whether the rankings of a given RSS are perfect. We generate pseudo-samples with a known ranking and use them to compare with the ranking of the given RSS sample. This is a general approach that can accommodate any type of raking, including perfect ranking. To generate pseudo-samples, we consider the given sample as the population and generate a perfect RSS. The test statistics can easily be implemented for balanced and unbalanced RSS. The proposed tests are compared using Monte Carlo simulation under different distributions and applied to a real data set.

Keywords

Imperfect rankings Order statistics Ranked set sampling Resampling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments and suggestions of the anonymous referee, and the associate editor.

References

  1. Al-Saleh MF, Zheng G (2002) Estimation of bivariate characteristics using ranked set sampling. Aust N Z J Stat 44:221–232CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad M, Hanif M, Muttlak HA (2010) Ranked set sampling. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, NewcastleGoogle Scholar
  3. Amiri S, Jozani MJ, Modarres R (2014) Resampling unbalanced ranked set samples with applications in testing hypothesis about the population mean. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 19(1):1–17CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Z, Bai Z, Sinha BK (2004) Ranked set sampling: theory and applications. Springer, New YorkCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Dell TR, Clutter JL (1972) Ranked set sampling theory with order statistics background. Biometrics 28:545–555CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Frey J (2014) Bootstrap confidence bands for the CDF using ranked-set sampling. J Korean Stat Soc 43:453–461CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Frey J, Wang L (2013) Most powerful rank tests for perfect rankings. Comput Stat Data Anal 60:157–168CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Frey J, Ozturk O, Deshpande JV (2007) Nonparametric tests for perfect judgment rankings. J Am Stat Assoc 102:708–717CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Forkman J, Amiri S, von Rosen D (2012) Effect of region on the uncertainty in crop variety trial programs with a reduced number of trials. Euphytica 186(2):489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hall P, Wilson SR (1991) Two guidelines for bootstrap hypothesis testing. Biometrics 47:757–762CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Kvam PH (2003) Ranked set sampling based on binary water quality data with covariates. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 8:271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li T, Balakrishnan N (2008) Some simple nonparametric methods to test for perfect ranking in ranked set sampling. J Stat Plan Inference 138:1325–338CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. McIntyre GA (1952) A method for unbiased selective sampling, using ranked sets. Aust J Agric Res 3:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samawi HM, Al-Sagheer OAM (2001) On the estimation of the distribution function using extreme and median ranked set sampling. Biom J 43:357–373CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Vock M, Balakrishnan N (2011) A Jonckheere-Terpstra-type test for perfect ranking in balanced ranked set sampling. J Stat Plan Inference 141:624–630CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Vock M, Balakrishnan N (2013) A connection between two nonparametric tests for perfect ranking in balanced ranked set sampling. Commun Stat Theory Methods 42:191–193CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. Zamanzade E, Reza Arghami N, Vock M (2014) A parametric test of perfect ranking in balanced ranked set sampling. Commun Stat Theory Methods 43:4589–4611CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Natural and Applied SciencesUniversity of Wisconsin-Green BayGreen BayUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsThe George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations