The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the Behavior of Randomization Tests without a Group Invariance Assumption
Abstract
Fisher's randomization construction of hypothesis tests is a powerful tool to yield tests that are nonparametric in nature in that their level is exactly equal to the nominal level in finite samples over a wide range of distributional assumptions. For example, the usual permutation t test to test equality of means is valid without a normality assumption of the underlying populations. On the other hand, Fisher's randomization construction is not applicable in this example unless the underlying populations differ only in location. In general, the basis for the randomization construction is invariance of the probability distribution of the data under a transformation group. It is the goal of this article to understand the robustness properties of randomization tests by studying their asymptotic validity in situations where the basis for their construction breaks down. Here, asymptotic validity refers to whether the probability of a Type I error tends asymptotically to the nominal level. In particular, it is shown that the randomization construction is generally asymptotically valid for certain one-sample problems, such as for testing a mean or a median, even when the underlying population is not symmetric. In contrast, the randomization construction for two-sample problems may yield invalid tests, though it depends on the precise nature of the problem. For example, the two-sample permutation test based on sample means is generally asymptotically valid only if the samples are of the same size. When comparing medians, however, the two-sample permutation test is generally invalid even if the sample sizes are equal.
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
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177013815 · Cited by 6,033
Fisher, R. A. (1936) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3923.554-a · Cited by 4,980
Cited by
Robust statistical methods in R using the WRS2 package
Mair, P., & Wilcox, R. (2020) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01246-w · Cited by 1,082
Elements of Large-Sample Theory
Strawderman, W. E., Lehmann, E. L., & Holmes, S. P. (2012) · Selected Works of E. L. Lehmann · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-1412-4_97 · Cited by 818
Exact and Approximate Stepdown Methods for Multiple Hypothesis Testing
Romano, J. P., & Wolf, M. (2005) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214504000000539 · Cited by 609
Self-citationResampling Methods for Computation-Intensive Data Analysis in Ecology and Evolution
Crowley, P. (1992) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.23.1.405 · Cited by 417
Why Permutation Tests are Superior to t and F Tests in Biomedical Research
Ludbrook, J., & Dudley, H. (1998) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1998.10480551 · Cited by 342
Metadata
- Authors
- Romano, J. P.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1990-09
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 411
- Pages
- 686-692
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2055373780
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.28
- 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: On the Behavior of Randomization Tests without a Group Invariance Assumption. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1990.10474928
- The paper
- Romano, J. P. (1990). On the Behavior of Randomization Tests without a Group Invariance Assumption. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1990.10474928
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.