Further Test Procedures

  • Lothar Sachs
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)

Abstract

When the two different methods of treatment are to be compared for effectiveness, preliminary Information is in many cases obtained by experiments on laboratory animals. Suppose we are interested in two ointment preparations. The question arises: Does there or does there not exist a difference in the effectiveness of the two preparations? There are test animals at our disposal on which we can produce the seat of a disease. Let the measure of effectiveness be the amount of time required for recovery:
  1. 1.

    The simplest approach would be to divide a group of test animals randomly into two subgroups of equal size, treat one group by method one and the other by method two, and then compare the results of the therapies.

     
  2. 2.

    The following approach is more effective: Test animals are paired in such a way that the individual pairs are as homogeneous as possible with regard to sex, age, weight, activity, etc. The partners are then assigned randomly (e.g., by tossing a coin) to the two treatments. The fact that the experimenter hardly ever has a completely homogeneous collection of animals at his disposal is taken into account in this procedure.

     
  3. 3.

    The following procedure is considerably more effective: A group of test animals is chosen and a so-called right-left comparison carried out. That is, we produce on the right and left flank of each individual (or any such natural homogeneous subgroup of size two, like a pair of twins or the two hands of the same person) two mutually independent seats of a disease, and allot the two treatments to the two flanks, determining by a random process which is to be treated by the one method and which by the other (cf., also Section 7.7).

     

Keywords

Null Hypothesis Confidence Limit Continuity Correction Standard Normal Variable Paired Observation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, F.: Yates correction and the statisticians. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 46(1951),490–501 [see also 47 (1952), 303 and American Statistician 30 (1976), 103–104]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bateman, G.: On the power function of the longest run as a test for randomness in a sequence of alternatives. Biometrika 35(1948), 97–112[see also 34 (1947), 335–339; 44 (1957), 168–178; 45 (1958), 253–256; 48 (1961), 461–465]MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, B. M.: (1) Tests of hypotheses concerning matched samples. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 29(1967), 468–474. (2) On tests for order and treatment differences in a matched 2 × 2. Biometrische Zeitschr. 13 (1971), 95–99Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, B. M., and Horst, C.: Supplement to Tables for Testing Significance in a 2 × 2 Contingency Table. New York 1966Google Scholar
  5. Bennett, B. M., and Hsu, P.: On the power function of the exact test for the 2 × 2 contingency table. Biometrika 47(1960), 393–397[editorial note 397, 398, correction 48 (1961), 475]MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, B. M., and Underwood, R. E.: On McNemar’s test for the 2 × 2 table and its power function. Biometrics 26(1970), 339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett, C. A.: Application of tests for randomness. Ind. Eng. Chem. 43(1951), 2063–2067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett, C. A., and Franklin, N. L.: Statistical Analysis in Chemistry and the Chemical Industry. New York 1954, pp. 678, 685Google Scholar
  9. Berchtold, W.: Die Irrtumswahrscheinlichkeiten des t 2-Kriteriums für kleine Versuchszahlen. Z. angew. Math. Mech. 49(1969), 634–636CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Berkson, J.: In dispraise of the exact test. Do the marginal totals of the 2 × 2 table contain relevant Information respecting the table proportions? Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2(1978), 27–42MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bihn, W. R.: Wandlungen in der statistischen Zeitreihenanalyse und deren Bedeutung für die ökonomische Forschung. Jahrb. Nationalök. Statistik 180(1967), 132–146 (see also Parzen 1967 and Nullau 1968)Google Scholar
  12. Birnbaum, Z. W.: Numerical tabulation of the distribution of Kolmogorov’s statistic for finite sample size. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47(1952), 425–441MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Blyth, C. R., and Hutchinson, D. W.: Table of Neyman-shortest unbiased confidence intervals for the binomial parameter. Biometrika 47(1960), 381–391MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Bogartz, R. S.: A least Squares method for Atting intercepting line segments to a set of data points. Psychol. Bull. 70(1968), 749–755 (see also 75 [1971], 294–296)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Box, G. E. P., and Jenkins, G. M.: Time Series Analysis, Foreeasting and Control. (Holden-Day, pp. 575) San Francisco 1976Google Scholar
  16. Bradley, J. V.: A survey of sign tests based on the binomial distribution. J. Qual. Technol. 1(1969), 89–101Google Scholar
  17. Bredenkamp, J.: F-Tests zur Prüfung von Trends und Trendunterschieden. Z. exper. angew. Psychologie 15(1968), 239–272Google Scholar
  18. Bross, I. D. J.: Taking a covariable into account. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 59(1964), 725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Casagrande, J. T., Pike, M. C, and Smith, P. G.: The power function of the “exact” test for comparing two binomial distributions. Applied Statistics 27(1978), 176–180MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clopper, C. J., and Pearson, E. S.: The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika 26(1934), 404–413MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cochran, W. G.: (1) The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37 (1950), 256–266. (2) The #2-test of goodness of fit. Ann. Math. Statist. 23 (1952), 315–345 [see Applied Statistics 29 (1980), 292–298 and Biometrika 67 (1980), 447–453]. (3) Some methods for strengthening the common chi-square tests. Biometrics 10 (1954), 417–451MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Cochran, W. G.: Sampling Techniques, 2nd edition, J. Wiley, New York, 1963Google Scholar
  23. Conover, W. J.: A Kolmogorov goodness-of-fit test for discontinuous distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 67(1972), 591–596MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Cox, D. R., and Stuart, A.: Some quick sign tests for trend in location and dispersion. Biometrika 42(1955), 80–95[cf., 67 (1980), 375–379]MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Crow, E. L.: Confidence intervals for a proportion. Biometrika 43(1956), 423–435MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Crow, E. L., and Gardner, R. S.: Confidence intervals for the expectation of a Poisson variable. Biometrika 46(1959), 441–453MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Croxton, F. E., and Cowden, D. J.: Applied General Statistics. 2nd ed. (Prentice-Hall) New York 1955Google Scholar
  28. Csorgo, M., and Guttman, I.: On the empty cell test. Technometrics 4(1962), 235–247CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Cureton, E. E.: The normal approximation to the signed-rank sampling distribution when zero differences are present. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 62(1967), 1068–1069 [see also 69 (1974), 368–373]CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  30. Darling, D. A.: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises tests. Ann. Math. Statist. 28(1957), 823–838MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  31. David, F. N.: (1) A y 2’ smooth’ test for goodness of fit. Biometrika 34(1947), 299–310. (2) Two combinatorial tests of whether a sample has come from a given population. Biometrika 37 (1950), 97–110MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. David, H. A., Hartley, H. O., and Pearson, E. S.: The distribution of the ratio, in a single normal sample, of ränge to Standard deviation. Biometrika 41(1954),482–493MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Davis, H. T.: The Analysis of Economic Time Series. San Antonio, Texas 1963Google Scholar
  34. Dixon, W. J., and Mood, A. M.: The Statistical sign test. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 41 (1946), 557–566 [see Int. Statist. Rev. 48 (1980), 19–28]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Documenta Geigy: Wissenschaftliche Tabellen, 7th edition, Basel 1968, pages 85–103 and 109–123 (8th revised edition 1980)Google Scholar
  36. Duckworth, W. E., and Wyatt, J. K.: Rapid Statistical techniques for Operations research workers. Oper. Res. Quarterly 9(1958), 218–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dunn, J. E.: A compounded multiple runs distribution. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 64(1969), 1415–1423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Eisenhart, C, Hastay, M. W., and Wallis, W. A.: Techniques of Statistical Analysis. New York 1947Google Scholar
  39. Feldman, S. E., and Klinger, E.: Short cut calculation of the Fisher-Yates “exact test”. Psychometrika 28(1963), 289–291MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Finkelstein, J. M., and Schafer, R. E.: Improved goodness-of-fit tests. Biometrika 58(1971), 641–645MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Finney, D. J., Latscha, R., Bennett, B. M., and Hsu, P.: Tables for Testing Significance in a 2 × 2 Contingency Table. Cambridge 1963Google Scholar
  42. Gail, M., and Gart, J. J.: The determination of sample sizes for use with the exact conditional test in 2 × 2 comparative trials. Biometrics 29(1973), 441–448[see Haseman (1978)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gart, J. J.: (1) Approximate confidence limits for the relative risk. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 24(1962), 454–463, 458. (2) An exact test för comparing matched proportions in crossover designs. Biometrika 56 (1969), 75–80 [see also Biometrics 27 (1971), 945-959 and Rev. Int. Stat. Inst. 39 (1971), 148-169]Google Scholar
  44. Gebhardt, F.: Verteilung und Signifikanzschranken des 3. und 4. Stichprobenmomentes bei normal-verteilten Variablen. Biometrische Zeitschr. 8(1966), 219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gildemeister, M., and Van der Waerden, B. L.: Die Zulässigkeit des x2-Kriteriums für kleine Versuchszahlen. Ber. Verh. Sachs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig, Math.-Nat. Kl. 95 (1944), 145–150Google Scholar
  46. Glasser, G. J.: A distribution-free test of independence with a sample of paired observations. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 57(1962), 116–133MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  47. Good, I. J.: Significance tests in parallel and in series J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 53(1958),799–813MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  48. Grizzle, J. E.: Continuity correction in the #2-test for 2 × 2 tables. The American Statistician 21(Oct. 1967), 28–32 [as well as 23 (April 1969), 35; cf. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 69 (1974), 374–382]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Harris, B. (Ed.): Spectral Analysis of Time Series. (Wiley, pp. 319) New York 1967Google Scholar
  50. Hart, B. L: Significance levels for the ratio of the mean Square successive difference to the variance. Ann. Math. Statist. 13(1942), 445–447MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Haseman, J. K.: Exact sample sizes for use with the Fisher-Irwin test for 2 × 2 tables. Biometrics 34(1978), 106–109[see Fleiss, J. L., Tytun, A, and Ury, H. K: Biometrics 36 (1980), 343–346 and 347–351]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Horbach, L.: Die Anwendung von Standardisierungsverfahren bei der Auswertung therapeutischer Vergleichsreihen. Arzneimittelforschung 17(1967), 1279–1288Google Scholar
  53. Jenkins, G. M.: Spectral Analysis and Its Applications. (Holden-Day, pp. 520) San Francisco 1968Google Scholar
  54. Jenkins, G. M., and Watts, D. E.: Spectrum Analysis and Its Applications. (Holden-Day, pp. 350) San Francisco 1968Google Scholar
  55. Jesdinsky, H. J.: Orthogonale Kontraste zur Prüfung von Trends. Biometrische Zeitschrift 11(1969), 252–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Johnson, E. M.: The Fisher-Yates exact test and unequal sample sizes. Psychometrika 37(1972), 103–106MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kincaid, W. M: The combination of tests based on discrete distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 57(1962), 10–19[see also 66 (1971), 802–806 and 68 (1973), 193-194]MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Klemm, P. G.: Neue Diagramme für die Berechnung von Vierfelderkorrelationen. Biometrische Zeitschr. 6(1964), 103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kolmogorov, A.: Confidence limits for an unknown distribution function. Ann. Math. Statist. 12(1941), 461–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Koziol, J. A., and Perlman, M. D.: Combining independent chi-squared tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association 73(1978), 753–763MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kruskal, W. H.: A nonparametric test for the several sample problem. Ann. Math. Statist. 23(1952), 525–540MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  62. Kuliback, S., Kupperman, M., and Ku, H. H.: An application of Information theory to the analysis of contingency tables, with a table of 2n lnn,n = 1(1)10,000. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Stds. B 66(1962), 217–243Google Scholar
  63. Le Roy, H. L.: Ein einfacher #2-Test für den Simultanvergleich der inneren Struktur von zwei analogen 2 × 2 — Häufigkeitstabellen mit freien Kolonnen-und Zeilentotalen. Schweizer, landw. Forschg. 1(1962), 451–454Google Scholar
  64. Levene, H.: On the power function of tests of randomness based on runs up and down. Ann. Math. Statist. 23(1952), 34–56MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  65. Li, J. C. R.: Statistical Inference. Vol. I (Edwards Brothers, pp. 658) Ann Arbor, Mich. 1964, p. 466Google Scholar
  66. Lienert, G. A.: Die zufallskritische Beurteilung psychologischer Variablen mittels verteilungsfreier Schnelltests. Psychol. Beiträge 7(1962), 183–215Google Scholar
  67. Lillefors, H. W.: (1) On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality with mean and variance unknown. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 62(1967), 399–402, Corrigenda 64 (1969), 1702. (2) On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the exponential distribution with mean unknown. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 64 (1969), 387–389 [see also Biometrika 63 (1976), 149–160]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ludwig, O.: über die stochastische Theorie der Merkmalsiterationen. Mitteilungsbl. math. Statistik 8(1956), 49–82MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. MacKinnon, W. J.: Table for both the sign test and distribution-free confidence intervals of the median for sample sizes to 1,000. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 59(1964), 935–956MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  70. Makridakis, S.: (1) A survey of time series. International Statistical Review 44(1976), 29–70. (2) Time-series analysis and foreeasting: an update and evaluation. International Statistical Review 46 (1978), 255–278 [see J. Roy. Statist. Soc. A 142 (1979), 97–145]CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  71. Marascuilo, L. A., and McSweeney, Maryellen: Nonparametric post hoc comparisons for trend. Psychological Bulletin 67(1967), 401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Massey, F. J. Jr.: The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 46(1951). 68–78[see also Allgem. Stat. Arch. 59 (1975), 228–250]MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Maxwell, A. E.: Analysing Qualitative Data. 2nd edition. (Methuen) London 1970Google Scholar
  74. McCornack, R. L.: Extended tables of the Wilcoxon matched päir rank statistic. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60(1965), 864–871[see also 65 (1970), 974–975, 69 (1974), 255–258, 368–373 and Method. Inform. Med. 14 (1975), 224–230]CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  75. McNemar, Q.: Note on sampling error of the differences between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12(1947), 153–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Miller, L. H.: Table of percentage points of Kolmogorov statistics. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 51(1956), 111–121MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  77. Moore, P. G.: The properties of the mean Square successive difference in samples from various populations. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 50(1955), 434–456MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neumann, J. von, Kent, R. H., Bellinson, H. B., and Hart, B. I.: The mean Square successive difference. Ann. Math. Statist. 12(1941), 153–162MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Nicholson, W. L: Occupancy probability distribution critical points. Biometrika 48(1961), 175–180MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  80. Nullau, B.: Verfahren zur Zeitreihenanalyse. Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin 1968, 1, 58–82 (see DIW-Beitr. z. Strukturf., H. 7/1969; Wirtsch. u. Stat. H. 1/1973, H. 2 and 5/1975)Google Scholar
  81. Olmstead, P. S.: Runs determined in a sample by an arbitrary cut. Bell Syst. Techn. J. 37(1958), 55–82Google Scholar
  82. Ott, R. L., and Free, S. M.: A short-cut rule for a one-sided test of hypothesis for qualitative data. Technometrics 11(1969), 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Parzen, E.: The role of spectral analysis in time series analysis. Rev. Int. Statist. Inst. 35(1967), 125–141(cf. Empirical Time Series Analysis. Holden-Day, San Francisco, Calif. 1969)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  84. Patnaik, P. B.: The power function of the test for the difference between two proportions in a 2 × 2 table. Biometrika 35(1948), 157–175MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  85. Paulson, E., and Wallis, W. A.: Planning and analyzing experiments for comparing two percentages. In Eisenhart, Ch., M. W. Hastay and W. A. Wallis (Eds.), Selected Techniques of Statistical Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York and London 1947, Chapter 7Google Scholar
  86. Pearson, E. S.: Table of percentage points of √ b1 and b2? in normal samples; a rounding off. Biometrika 52(1965), 282–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Pearson, E. S., and Hartley, H. O.: Biometrika Tables for Statisticians. Vol. I, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1966, 1970Google Scholar
  88. Pearson, E. S., and Stephens, M. A.: The ratio of ränge to Standard deviation in the same normal sample. Biometrika 51(1964), 484–487MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  89. Plackett, R. L.: The continuity correction in 2 × 2 tables. Biometrika 51(1964), 327–337 [see Biometrical Journal 22 (1980), 241–248]MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  90. Quandt, R. E.: (1) Statistical discrimination among alternative hypotheses and some economic regularities. J. Regional Sei. 5(1964), 1–23. (2) Old and new methods of estimation and the Pareto distribution. Metrika 10 (1966), 55–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Radhakrishna, S.: Combination of results from several 2 × 2 contingency tables. Biometrics 21(1965), 86–98CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  92. Rao, C. R.: Linear Statistical Inference and Its Applications. 2nd ed. (Wiley) New York 1973, pp. 404-10Google Scholar
  93. Rehse, E.: Zur Analyse biologischer Zeitreihen. Elektromedizin 15(1970), 167–180Google Scholar
  94. Runyon, R. P., and Haber, A.: Fundamentals of Behavioral Statistics. (Addison-Wesley, pp. 304) Reading, Mass. 1967, p. 258Google Scholar
  95. Sachs, L.: (1) Der Vergleich zweier Prozentsätze-Unabhängigkeitstests für Mehrfeldertafeln. Biometrische Zeitschr. 7(1965), 55–60. (2) Statistische Methoden. Ein Soforthelfer. 3rd revised edition (Springer, 105 pages) Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1976, pages 69–70,72–75 (5th revised edition 1982). (3) Numerischer Vergleich von 11 Konkurrenten des klassischen Vierfelder-x 2-Tests bei kleinem Stichprobenumfang. Habilitationsschrift, Kiel 1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Sandler, J.: A test of the significance of the difference between the means of correlated measures, based on a simplification of Student’s t. Brit. J. Psychol. 46(1955), 225–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sarris, V.: Nichtparametrische Trendanalysen in der klinisch-psychologischen Forschung. Z. exper. angew. Psychologie 15(1968), 291–316Google Scholar
  98. Seeger, P.: Variance analysis of complete designs: Some practical aspects. (Almqvist and Wiksell, pp. 225) Uppsala 1966, pp. 166-190Google Scholar
  99. Seeger, P., and Gabrielsson, A.: Applicability of the Cochran Q test and the Ftest for Statistical analysis of dichotomous data for dependent samples. Psychol. Bull.69 (1968), 269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Shapiro, S. S., and Wilk, M. B.: (1) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(1965), 591–611. (2) Approximations for the null distribution of the W statistic Technometrics 10 (1968), 861–866 [cf. Statist. Neerl. 22 (1968), 241–248 and 27 (1973), 163–169]MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  101. Shapiro, S. S., Wilk, M. B., and Chen, H. J.: A comparative study of various tests for normality. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 63(1968), 1343–1372[cf. 66 (1971), 760–762 and 67 (1972), 215–216]CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  102. Slakter, M. J.: A comparison of the Pearson chi-square and Kolmogorov goodness-offit tests with respect to validity. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 60(1965), 854–858; Corrigenda: 61 (1966), 1249 [cf. 69 (1974), 730–737 and 71 (1976), 204–209]MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  103. Smirnov, N.: Tables for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions. Ann. Math. Statist. 19(1948), 279–281[cf. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. 38 (1976), 152–156]MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stephens, M. A.: Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-Von Mises and related statistics without extensive tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B32(1970), 115–122Google Scholar
  105. Stevens, W. L.: (1) Distribution of groups in a sequence of alternatives. Ann. Eugenics 9(1939), 10–17. (2) Accuracy of mutation rates. J. Genetics 43 (1942), 301–307 “Student” (W. S. Gösset): The probable error of a mean. Biometrika 6 (1908), 1–25CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  106. Suits, D. B.: Statistics: An Introduction to Quantitative Economic Research. Chicago, III. 1963, Chapter 4Google Scholar
  107. Swed, Frieda, S., and Eisenhart, C: Tables for testing randomness of grouping in a sequence of alternatives. Ann. Math. Statist. 14(1943), 83–86CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  108. Täte, M. W., and Brown, Sara, M.: Note on the Cochran Q-test. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 65(1970), 155–160[see also 68 (1973), 989–993; 70 (1975), 186–180; Biometrics 21 (1965), 1008–1010 and 36 (1980), 665–670]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Thomson, G. W.: Bounds for the ratio of ränge to Standard deviation. Biometrika 42(1955), 268–269MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  110. Tukey, J. W., and McLaughlin, D. H.: Less vulnerable confidence and significance procedures for location based on a Single sample: Trimming/Winsorization. Sankhya Ser. A 25(1963), 331–352MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  111. Ury, H. K.: A note on taking a covariable into account. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 61(1966), 490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Vessereau, A.: Sur les conditions d’application du criterium x2 de Pearson. Bull. Inst. Int. Statistique 36(3) (1958), 87–101MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  113. Waerden, B. L. van der: Mathematical Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York 1969MATHGoogle Scholar
  114. Wallis, W. A.: Rough-and-ready Statistical tests. Industrial Quality Control 8(1952) (5), 35–40Google Scholar
  115. Wallis, W. A., and Moore, G. H.: A significance test for time series analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 36(1941), 401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Walter, E.: (1) Über einige nichtparametrische Testverfahren. I, II. Mitteilungsbl. Mathemat. Statistik 3(1951), 31–44, 73–92. (2) x2-Test zur Prüfung der Symmetrie bezüglich Null. Mitteilungsbl. Mathemat. Statistik 6 (1954), 92–104. (3) Einige einfache nichtparametrische überall wirksame Tests zur Prüfung der Zweistichprobenhypothese mit paarigen Beobachtungen. Metrika 1 (1958), 81–88MATHGoogle Scholar
  117. Weichselberger, K.: über eine Theorie der gleitenden Durchschnitte und verschiedene Anwendungen dieser Theorie. Metrika 8(1964), 185–230MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  118. Wilcoxon, F., Katti, S. K., and Wilcox, Roberta A.: Critical Values and Probability Levels for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test. Lederle Laboratories, Division Amer. Cyanamid Company, Pearl River, New York, August 1963Google Scholar
  119. Wilcoxon, F., and Wilcox, Roberta A.: Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. Lederle Laboratories, Pearl River, New York 1964Google Scholar
  120. Wilk, M. B., and Shapiro, S.S.: The Joint assessment of normality of several independent samples. Technometrics 10(1968), 825–839[see also J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 67 (1972), 215–216]CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  121. Woolf, B.: The log likelihood ratio test (the G-test). Methods and tables for tests of heterogeneity in contingency tables. Ann. Human Genetics 21(1957), 397–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Yamane, T.: Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd ed. (Harper and Row, pp. 919) New York 1967, pp. 330–367, 845-873Google Scholar
  123. Yates, F.: Contingency tables involving small numbers and the x2-text. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1(1934), 217–235[cf. Biometrika 42 (1955), 404–411 and Biometrical Journal 22 (1980), 241–248]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lothar Sachs
    • 1
  1. 1.Abteilung Medizinische Statistik und Dokumentation im KlinikumUniversität KielKiel 1Federal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations