The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: For nonrejection of H0, don't we want high signifance?
Replies: 7   Last Post: Apr 26, 2013 12:11 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Richard Ulrich

Posts: 2,961
Registered: 12/13/04
Re: For nonrejection of H0, don't we want high signifance?
Posted: Apr 23, 2013 3:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:15:20 -0700 (PDT), Paul
<> wrote:

>I'm perusing
>for a statistical test of normality for my residuals. H0 is normality
>of the residuals.
>For typical hypothesis testing, we want small significance, which
>means a small rejection region. Thus, and value of the statistic that
>falls in the rejection region is less likely due to chance (in
>combination with the truth of H0). In testing a drug for a medical
>effect, that makes sense because we often want to demonstrate an
>effect, and H0 is typically the absence of an effect. For values of
>the statistic that fall in the small rejection region, we can say that
>if H0 is true, it is highly unlikely for us to get this value for the
>statistic. The smaller the significance, the smaller the rejection
>region, and less we are able to attribute the chance any values in the
>rejection region.
>For normality, we often want the opposite. We want H0, which is
>normality of the residuals. We can not accept H0 to any degree of
>confidence using this setup of hypothesis testing, but at least we can
>make it very easy to reject H0 so any non-rejection of H0 is seen to
>be well founded. This implies large rejection region and high
>significance. In fact, we might want to a 95% rejection region, the
>counterpart of the wanting a 5% rejection region when the intent is to
>demonstrate that rejection of H0 is not due to chance.
>Is this reasonable? I ask because the table in the above link shows
>significance values 1%, 2.5%, 5%, 10%, and 15%. These small values
>seem more like the values that one might be interested in when wanting
>to demonstrate valid rejection of H0.

No, it is not reasonable in the context of testing.

"Nothing is really normal." Any real data that you collect (or
any residuals that you want to look at) are going to look
non-normal -- at any p-value that you want to consider -- if
you can take a sample N that is large enough.

That's part of why "tests of normality" are not used much by
practicing statisticians. There are usually more obvious clues
(source of the data; eyeballing the numbers) that a test is
going to be affected.

- The F-test is pretty darn robust, once you have a large
enough sample. If the sample is small enough that normality
really matters, it is too often too small for the test of normality
to have enough power to detect the non-normality.

- Furthermore, the nature of the non-normality will matter.
Hetergeneity across the range of prediction warns about the
validity of the whole model, and can be important than outliers;
but one or two very *extreme* outliers can sabotage the error
term, rendering testing useless.

Independent t-test.
S1 = (1,2,3,4,5); S2= (6,7,8,9,10).
- t-test, probably significant.
Replace the highest value, 10, in the higher group with
1000. t-test is no longer significant or even suggests a

Rich Ulrich

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.