CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Statistical Distribution Estimation and ApplicationsProbability and Statistical ResearchStatistical Methods and Applications

Small-sample study of the use of mid-p power divergence goodness-of-fit tests

Tang, Man-Lai.·1998·Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
DOI 10.1080/00949659808811929
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Asymptotic goodness-of-fit tests based on large sample theory have been shown to be unreliable in small sample designs and sparse data structures. In these situations, it is widely believed that exact version tests are dependable. However, exact goodness-of-fit tests that are based on discrete probabilities are conservative and the calculation of the exact distribution may be computationally intractable. In this article, we present a method, which is based on recursive polynomial multiplication, for performing exact analysis of goodness-of-fit tests. This method has been shown to be more efficient and accurate than an existing fast Fourier transform method. To overcome the conservativeness problem, we suggest the use of mid–P version goodness–of–fit tests. The small sample properties of the asymptotic, the exact, and the mid–P version goodness–of–fit tests are examined via the recursive polynomial multiplication method. Four commonly used power divergence statistics and six null hypotheses ranging from the equiprobable to the extremely skew are considered. The actual significance level behaviors under various null hypotheses suggest that as an anti–conservative test, the mid–P version tests behave fairly well. Nevertheless, it is not the case for the asymptotic and the exact tests. Among the four statistics considered, the exact power comparisons under a specific alternative to various null hypotheses show that the power divergence statistic with λ= 2/3 and the Pearson’s chi–squared statistic (λ = 1) are generally the most preferable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00949659808811929

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Tang, M.-L.
Affiliations
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Tang, Man-Lai.
ORCID
Tang, Man-Lai.
Venue
Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1998-12
Volume
62
Issue
1-2
Pages
137-180
ISSN
  • 0094-9655 (ISSN-L)
  • 1563-5163
DOI
10.1080/00949659808811929
OpenAlex
W2068630299
Cited by
6
References
32
FWCI
0.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
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 › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
goodness-of-fit tests, power divergence statistics, small sample inference, Pearson chi-squared statistic, data sparsity, power comparison

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