Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of two methods for transforming non-normal manufacturing data

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many statistical methods applied to manufacturing quality control and operations management have been under the assumption that the process characteristic investigated is normally distributed. If the process characteristic is not normally distributed, a popular approach is to transform the non-normal data into a normal one. In this paper, we consider the Box-Cox transformation, and compare the transformation power using two different parameter estimation methods, including the maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) and the method of percentiles (MOP). The performance comparison is based on the pass rate under the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The results show that, in general, the MOP has better pass rate, while the MLE has smaller power variation for most cases investigated. For small sample size (n=5, 10) both methods perform equally well. For large sample size, the MOP is recommended due to its simplicity and significantly higher pass rate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J Roy Stat Soc B 26:211–252

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Draper NR, Cox DR (1969) On distributions and their transformations to normality. J Roy Stat Soc B 31:472–476

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Han AK (1987) A non-parametric analysis of transformation. J Econometrics 35:191–209

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Hernandes F, Johnson RA (1980) The large sample behavior of transformation to normality. J Am Stat Assoc 75:855–861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hinkley DV (1975) On power transformations to symmetry. Biometrika 62(1):101–111

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Hinkley DV (1976) On quick choice of power transformation. Appl Stat 26(1):67–69

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Madansky A (1988) Prescriptions for working statisticians. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Ogwang T, Gouranga Rao UL (1997) A simple algorithm for estimating Box-Cox models. Statistician 46(3):399–409

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pyzdek T (1995) Why normal distributions aren’t [all that normal]. Qual Eng 7(4):767–777

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schlesselman J (1971) Power families. A note on the Box-Cox transformation. J Roy Stat Soc B 33:307–371

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality. Biometrika 52(3–4):591–611

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Taylor JMG (1985) Power transformations to symmetry. Biometrika 72(1):145–152

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Tukey JW (1957) The comparative anatomy of transformations. Ann Math Stat 28:602–632

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering & Management, National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan, Republic of China

    S. H. Chung, W. L. Pearn & Y. S. Yang

Authors
  1. S. H. Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. W. L. Pearn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. S. Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. H. Chung.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chung, S.H., Pearn, W.L. & Yang, Y.S. A comparison of two methods for transforming non-normal manufacturing data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 31, 957–968 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0279-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-0279-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation