The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
K-Sample Anderson–Darling Tests
Abstract
Two k-sample versions of an Anderson–Darling rank statistic are proposed for testing the homogeneity of samples. Their asymptotic null distributions are derived for the continuous as well as the discrete case. In the continuous case the asymptotic distributions coincide with the (k – 1)-fold convolution of the asymptotic distribution for the Anderson–Darling one-sample statistic. The quality of this large sample approximation is investigated for small samples through Monte Carlo simulation. This is done for both versions of the statistic under various degrees of data rounding and sample size imbalances. Tables for carrying out these tests are provided, and their usage in combining independent one- or k-sample Anderson–Darling tests is pointed out. The test statistics are essentially based on a doubly weighted sum of integrated squared differences between the empirical distribution functions of the individual samples and that of the pooled sample. One weighting adjusts for the possibly different sample sizes, and the other is inside the integration placing more weight on tail differences of the compared distributions. The two versions differ mainly in the definition of the empirical distribution function. These tests are consistent against all alternatives. The use of these tests is two-fold: (a) in a one-way analysis of variance to establish differences in the sampled populations without making any restrictive parametric assumptions or (b) to justify the pooling of separate samples for increased sample size and power in further analyses. Exact finite sample mean and variance formulas for one of the two statistics are derived in the continuous case. It appears that the asymptotic standardized percentiles serve well as approximate critical points of the appropriately standardized statistics for individual sample sizes as low as 5. The application of the tests is illustrated with an example. Because of the convolution nature of the asymptotic distribution, a further use of these critical points is possible in combining independent Anderson–Darling tests by simply adding their test statistics.
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
Convergence of Probability Measures
Billingsley, P. (1999) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316962 · Cited by 13,910
Practical Nonparametric Statistics
Groggel, D. J. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.2000.10486067 · Cited by 11,041
Convergence of Probability Measures
Kingman, J. F. C., & Billingsley, P. (1969) · Revue de l'Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute · doi:10.2307/1402124 · Cited by 6,812
Nonparametric Statistical Methods
(1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1999.10485954 · Cited by 6,090
Ziegel, E. R., Lehmann, E. L., & Casella, G. (1999) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270597 · Cited by 4,203
Asymptotic Theory of Certain "Goodness of Fit" Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes
Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. (1952) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177729437 · Cited by 3,542
Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks
Mergenthaler, M. J., & Lehmann, E. L. (1979) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1268531 · Cited by 3,329
EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons
Stephens, M. A. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10480196 · Cited by 3,166
Self-citationNonparametric Statistical Methods.
Moore, D. S., Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D. A. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2285701 · Cited by 2,857
Anderson, T. W., & Darling, D. A. (1954) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1954.10501232 · Cited by 2,450
Cited by
The California-Kepler Survey. III. A Gap in the Radius Distribution of Small Planets*
Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Howard, A. W., Isaacson, H., Marcy, G. W., Cargile, P. A., Hebb, L., Weiss, L. M., Johnson, J. A., Morton, T. D., et al. (2017) · The Astronomical Journal · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa80eb · Cited by 1,446
Crowell, H. L., Soneson, C., Germain, P.-L., Calini, D., Collin, L., Raposo, C., Malhotra, D., & Robinson, M. D. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19894-4 · Cited by 515
COVID-19 diagnosis by routine blood tests using machine learning
Kukar, M., Gunčar, G., Vovko, T., Podnar, S., Černelč, P., Brvar, M., Zalaznik, M., Notar, M., Moškon, S., & Notar, M. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-90265-9 · Cited by 179
Learning Enhances Sensory Processing in Mouse V1 before Improving Behavior
Jurjut, O., Georgieva, P., Busse, L., & Katzner, S. (2017) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3485-16.2017 · Cited by 99
Synaptic Changes in the Dentate Gyrus of APP/PS1 Transgenic Mice Revealed by Electron Microscopy
Alonso-Nanclares, L., Merino-Serrais, P., Gonzalez, S., & DeFelipe, J. (2013) · Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1097/nen.0b013e31828d41ec · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1987-09
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 399
- Pages
- 918-924
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2009953698
- Cited by
- 531
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 1.89
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: K-Sample Anderson–Darling Tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478517
- The paper
- Scholz, F. W., & Stephens, M. A. (1987). K-Sample Anderson–Darling Tests. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478517
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.