A Ralph Henderson1. 1. Department of Biochemistry, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 5C1. ahenders@uwo.ca
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many experimentally-derived data sets are generated in the practice of clinical chemistry. Graphical presentation is essential to assess the data distribution. The distribution must also be assessed quantitatively. These approaches will determine if the data is Normal or not. Finally the results of these tests of Normality must be shown to be free of sample size effects. METHODS: Four experimentally-derived data sets were used. They represented normal, positive kurtotic, positive- and negatively-skewed distributions. These data sets were examined by graphical techniques, by moment tests, by tests of Normality, and monitored for sample size effects. RESULTS: The preferred graphical techniques are the histogram and the box-and-whisker plots that may be supplemented, with advantage, by quantile-quantile or probability-probability plots. Classical tests of skewness and kurtosis can produce conflicting and often confusing results and, as a consequence, the alternative use of the newer L-moments is advocated. Normality tests included the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Lilliefors modification), Cramér-von Mises and Anderson-Darling tests (empirical distribution function statistics) and the Gan-Koehler, Shapiro-Wilk, Shapiro-Francia, and Filliben tests (regression/correlation techniques). Of these only the Anderson-Darling, Shapiro-Wilk, and Shapiro-Francia tests correctly classified all four test samples. The effect of sample size on the resulting p-value was investigated using Royston's V'/v' graphical test. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to Normality testing should follow the route of graphical presentation, the use of L-moments, the use of Anderson-Darling, Shapiro-Wilk, or Shapiro-Francia testing, and Royston's sample size monitoring.
BACKGROUND: Many experimentally-derived data sets are generated in the practice of clinical chemistry. Graphical presentation is essential to assess the data distribution. The distribution must also be assessed quantitatively. These approaches will determine if the data is Normal or not. Finally the results of these tests of Normality must be shown to be free of sample size effects. METHODS: Four experimentally-derived data sets were used. They represented normal, positive kurtotic, positive- and negatively-skewed distributions. These data sets were examined by graphical techniques, by moment tests, by tests of Normality, and monitored for sample size effects. RESULTS: The preferred graphical techniques are the histogram and the box-and-whisker plots that may be supplemented, with advantage, by quantile-quantile or probability-probability plots. Classical tests of skewness and kurtosis can produce conflicting and often confusing results and, as a consequence, the alternative use of the newer L-moments is advocated. Normality tests included the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (Lilliefors modification), Cramér-von Mises and Anderson-Darling tests (empirical distribution function statistics) and the Gan-Koehler, Shapiro-Wilk, Shapiro-Francia, and Filliben tests (regression/correlation techniques). Of these only the Anderson-Darling, Shapiro-Wilk, and Shapiro-Francia tests correctly classified all four test samples. The effect of sample size on the resulting p-value was investigated using Royston's V'/v' graphical test. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic approach to Normality testing should follow the route of graphical presentation, the use of L-moments, the use of Anderson-Darling, Shapiro-Wilk, or Shapiro-Francia testing, and Royston's sample size monitoring.
Authors: Akshay Goel; Roderick McColl; Kevin S King; Anthony Whittemore; Ronald M Peshock Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-09-30 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ashley K McGrew; Lora R Ballweber; Sara K Moses; Craig A Stricker; Kimberlee B Beckmen; Mo D Salman; Todd M O'Hara Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Vijay Antharam; Joanna F Collingwood; John-Paul Bullivant; Mark R Davidson; Saurav Chandra; Albina Mikhaylova; Mary E Finnegan; Christopher Batich; John R Forder; Jon Dobson Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-08-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kai Januschowski; Sebastian Müller; Carlo Krupp; Martin S Spitzer; José Hurst; Maximilian Schultheiss; Karl-Ulrich Bartz-Schmidt; Peter Szurman; Sven Schnichels Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2015-03-22 Impact factor: 1.355