Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 334

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of small sample size studies using nonparametric bootstrap test with pooled resampling method

Dwivedi, Alok Kumar, Mallawaarachchi, Indika, Alvarado, Luis A.·2017·Statistics in Medicine
DOI 10.1002/sim.7263
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Experimental studies in biomedical research frequently pose analytical problems related to small sample size. In such studies, there are conflicting findings regarding the choice of parametric and nonparametric analysis, especially with non‐normal data. In such instances, some methodologists questioned the validity of parametric tests and suggested nonparametric tests. In contrast, other methodologists found nonparametric tests to be too conservative and less powerful and thus preferred using parametric tests. Some researchers have recommended using a bootstrap test; however, this method also has small sample size limitation. We used a pooled method in nonparametric bootstrap test that may overcome the problem related with small samples in hypothesis testing. The present study compared nonparametric bootstrap test with pooled resampling method corresponding to parametric, nonparametric, and permutation tests through extensive simulations under various conditions and using real data examples. The nonparametric pooled bootstrap t‐test provided equal or greater power for comparing two means as compared with unpaired t‐test, Welch t‐test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and permutation test while maintaining type I error probability for any conditions except for Cauchy and extreme variable lognormal distributions. In such cases, we suggest using an exact Wilcoxon rank sum test. Nonparametric bootstrap paired t‐test also provided better performance than other alternatives. Nonparametric bootstrap test provided benefit over exact Kruskal–Wallis test. We suggest using nonparametric bootstrap test with pooled resampling method for comparing paired or unpaired means and for validating the one way analysis of variance test results for non‐normal data in small sample size studies. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.7263

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 334

Metadata

Authors
Dwivedi, A. K., Mallawaarachchi, I., & Alvarado, L. A.
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-03-09
Volume
36
Issue
14
Pages
2187-2205
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
DOI
10.1002/sim.7263
OpenAlex
W2592359670
Cited by
334
References
30
FWCI
8.86
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.