Comparison of Efficiency for Parametric and Nonparametric Tests in Multiple Comparisons of a Completely Randomized Designs
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research purposed to study and compare the efficiencies of multiple comparisons tests with and without parameter of completely randomized design consisting of 6 tests, i.e., Student-Newman-Keul’s test (SNK test), Duncan’s new multiple range test, Waller-Duncan test, Conover test, van der Waerden test and Nemenyi test. The study was conducted in data randomly obtained from normal distribution, gamma distribution and log-normal distribution. For the probability calculation of type I error and power of a test using identical and different sample sizes, divided into small size, medium size and large size, i.e., (10,10,10), (30,30,30), (50,50,50), (5,10,15), (25,30,35) and (45,50,55), and there were 2 levels of significance: 0.01 and 0.05. The results of the study, according to objective 1, indicated that for every situation, the best probability control capability of type I error was found in Student-Newman-Keul’s test, Duncan’s new multiple range test, Waller-Duncan test, Conover test and van der Waerden test. As Weller-Duncan test provided the best power of a test for every situation and the results of the study, according to objective 2, Waller-Duncan test is most suitable for testing data with normal distribution, gamma distribution and log-normal distribution.
Downloads
Article Details
References
[2] Worayangkun, S., 1988, Comparisons of the Power of a Test Between Parametric and Nonparametric Tests in Multiple Comparisons of a Randomized Complete Block Design, Master thesis, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. (in Thai)
[3] Francisco, D.A.S.S. and Carlos, A.V.D.A., 2016, Comparison of means of agricultural experimentation data through different tests using the software assistant, Afr. J. Agric. Res. 11: 3527-3531.
[4] Armando, C., Décio, B. and Clarice, G.B.D., 2008, Modifications for the Tukey test procedure and evaluation of the power and efficiency of multiple comparison procedures, Sci. Agric. 65: 428-432.
[5] Douglas, C.E., 2019, Multiple Comparisons: Philosophies and Illustrations, Available Source: http://www.physiology.org/journal/ajpregu, May 1, 2019.
[6] Pinchoo, P., 2007, Comparisons of type I error rates and power of the test in post hoc comparison procedures for completely randomized design, J. Res. Meth. 20(3): 331-351. (in Thai)
[7] Ozkaya, G. and Ercan, I., 2012, Examining multiple comparison procedures according to error rate, power type and false discovery rate, J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Met. 11: 348-360.
[8] David, J.S., 2012, Multiple comparison procedures-cutting the gordian knot, Agron. J. 107: 730-735.
[9] Boardman, T.J. and Moffitt, D.R., 1971, Graphical Monte Carlo type I error rates for multiple comparison procedures, Biometrics 27: 738-744.
[10] Khumsaard, N., 2009, Power of Test on Multiple Comparison, Master Thesis, Srinakharinwirot University, Bangkok, 112 p. (in Thai)
[11] Carmer, S.G. and Walker, W.M., 1985, Pairwise multiple comparisons of treatment means in agronomic research, J. Agron. Educ. 14: 19-26.
[12] Bradley, J.V., 1978, Robustness, J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 31: 144-152.