Comparisons of various types of normality tests
Open accessAbstract
Normality tests can be classified into tests based on chi-squared, moments, empirical distribution, spacings, regression and correlation and other special tests. This paper studies and compares the power of eight selected normality tests: the Shapiro–Wilk test, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the Lilliefors test, the Cramer–von Mises test, the Anderson–Darling test, the D'Agostino–Pearson test, the Jarque–Bera test and chi-squared test. Power comparisons of these eight tests were obtained via the Monte Carlo simulation of sample data generated from alternative distributions that follow symmetric short-tailed, symmetric long-tailed and asymmetric distributions. Our simulation results show that for symmetric short-tailed distributions, D'Agostino and Shapiro–Wilk tests have better power. For symmetric long-tailed distributions, the power of Jarque–Bera and D'Agostino tests is quite comparable with the Shapiro–Wilk test. As for asymmetric distributions, the Shapiro–Wilk test is the most powerful test followed by the Anderson–Darling test.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
PFAS and physical-chemical values in the current study did not follow a normal or lognormal distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk test.
“PFAS and physical-chemical values in the current study did not follow a normal or lognormal distribution based on the Shapiro-Wilk test (Yap and Sim, 2011).”
From Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in landfill liquids from Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Wisconsin (2024) · cites this paper as Yap and Sim, 2011
PFAS data were not normally or lognormally distributed, so nonparametric tests were used.
“Results from Shapiro-Wilk tests (Yap and Sim, 2011) indicated that PFAS data were not normally or lognormally distributed, and thus nonparametric tests were used to compare the different types of aqueous landfill samples having at least five data points.”
From Evaluation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in leachate, gas condensate, stormwater and groundwater at landfills (2023) · cites this paper as Yap and Sim, 2011
Cites
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480 · see citing works
A Suggestion for Using Powerful and Informative Tests of Normality
D'agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., & D'agostino, R. B. (1990) · The American Statistician · doi:10.2307/2684359 · Cited by 1,809 · see citing works
Low Moments for Small Samples: A Comparative Study of Order Statistics
Hastings, C., Mosteller, F., Tukey, J. W., & Winsor, C. P. (1947) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730388 · Cited by 366 · cited 1× · see citing works
“gif"/> , originally proposed by Ramberg and Schmeiser 36 , is a four-parameter generalization of the two-parameter Tukey's Lambda family of distribution 37 and Karian and Dudewicz 38 has published tables that provide parameter <inline-graphic xmlns:xlink="http://www.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Bowden, J. A., Tolaymat, T. M., Townsend, T. G., & Solo-Gabriele, H. M. (2023) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.137903 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Power Comparison of Various Normality Tests
Khan, R. A., & Ahmad, F. (2017) · Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research · doi:10.18187/pjsor.v11i3.1082 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Seo, Y.-G., Lim, H., Kim, Y., Ju, Y.-S., Choi, Y.-J., Lee, H.-J., Jang, H. B., Park, S. I., & Park, K. H. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245875 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Liu, Y., Bowden, J. A., Townsend, T. G., & Solo-Gabriele, H. M. (2024) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2024.141719 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
A cross‐comparative analysis of in vivo versus ex vivo MRI indices in a mouse model of concussion
Vinh To, X., Kurniawan, N. D., Cumming, P., & Nasrallah, F. A. (2023) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2023.148562 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yap, B. W., & Sim, C. H.
- Affiliations
- Universiti Teknologi MARA
- University of Malaya (MY)
- Venue
- Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-05-18
- Volume
- 81
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2141-2155
- ISSN
- 0094-9655 (ISSN-L)
- 1563-5163
- OpenAlex
- W2033263428
- Cited by
- 897
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 76 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
- Keywords
- normality testing, statistical power comparison, Shapiro-Wilk test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Lilliefors test, Cramer-von Mises test, Anderson-Darling test, Jarque-Bera test, chi-square test, skewed distributions, Monte Carlo simulation
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