The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Robustness of the two independent samples t‐test when applied to ordinal scaled data
Abstract
One may encounter the application of the two independent samples t‐test to ordinal scaled data (for example, data that assume only the values 0, 1, 2, 3) from small samples. This situation clearly violates the underlying normality assumption for the t‐test and one cannot appeal to large sample theory for validity. In this paper we report the results of an investigation of the t‐test's robustness when applied to data of this form for samples of sizes 5 to 20. Our approach consists of complete enumeration of the sampling distributions and comparison of actual levels of significance with the significance level expected if the data followed a normal distribution. We demonstrate under general conditions the robustness of the t‐test in that the maximum actual level of significance is close to the declared level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543042003237 · Cited by 1,826
Cited by
Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: What could possibly go wrong?
Liddell, T. M., & Kruschke, J. K. (2018) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.009 · Cited by 805
The analysis of ordered categorical data: An overview and a survey of recent developments
Liu, I., & Agresti, A. (2005) · Test · doi:10.1007/bf02595397 · Cited by 301
Statistical considerations in the design and analysis of community intervention trials
Donner, A., & Klar, N. (1996) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(95)00511-0 · Cited by 230
D'agostino, R. B., Chase, W., & Belanger, A. (1988) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1988.10475563 · Cited by 202
Self-citation(2004) · Health and Quality of Life Outcomes · doi:10.1186/1477-7525-2-26 · Cited by 145
Metadata
- Authors
- Heeren, T., & D'Agostino, R.
- Venue
- Statistics in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79-90
- ISSN
- 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0258
- OpenAlex
- W1972901764
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
