Open Access
Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2018-07-24
scimago Q1
wos Q2
SJR: 0.803
CiteScore: 5.4
Impact factor: 2.6
ISSN: 19326203
PubMed ID:
30040850
Multidisciplinary
Abstract
When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations when the observations in the data are continuous. However, in practice, observations are discretized due various logical reasons, or the data are ordinal in nature. When ranks are tied, most textbooks recommend using mid-ranks to replace the tied ranks, a practice that affects the distribution of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test under the null hypothesis. Other methods for breaking ties have also been proposed. In this study, we examine four tie-breaking methods—average-scores, mid-ranks, jittering, and omission—for their effects on Type I and Type II error of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test and the two-sample t-test for various combinations of sample sizes, underlying population distributions, and percentages of tied observations. We use the results to determine the maximum percentage of ties for which the power and size are seriously affected, and for which method of tie-breaking results in the best Type I and Type II error properties. Not surprisingly, the underlying population distribution of the data has less of an effect on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test than on the t-test. Surprisingly, we find that the jittering and omission methods tend to hold Type I error at the nominal level, even for small sample sizes, with no substantial sacrifice in terms of Type II error. Furthermore, the t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test are equally effected by ties in terms of Type I and Type II error; therefore, we recommend omitting tied observations when they occur for both the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney due to the bias in Type I error that is created when tied observations are left in the data, in the case of the t-test, or adjusted using mid-ranks or average-scores, in the case of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Found
Nothing found, try to update filter.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
|
|
|
ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
PeerJ
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Menopause
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Entropy
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Children
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Climate Dynamics
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
International Journal of Legal Medicine
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Infection Prevention in Practice
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Academic Radiology
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Talanta
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Cortex
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
LUTS: Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
IEEE Access
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Diagnostics
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Journal of Data Analysis and Information Processing
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
PLoS ONE
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Green Analytical Chemistry
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Scientific Reports
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Trees Forests and People
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
BMJ Open Quality
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
1
|
Publishers
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
|
|
Elsevier
7 publications, 29.17%
|
|
|
MDPI
4 publications, 16.67%
|
|
|
Springer Nature
3 publications, 12.5%
|
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
2 publications, 8.33%
|
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
2 publications, 8.33%
|
|
|
PeerJ
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Wiley
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
BMJ
1 publication, 4.17%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Metrics
24
Total citations:
24
Citations from 2024:
6
(25%)
Cite this
GOST |
RIS |
BibTex |
MLA
Cite this
GOST
Copy
McGee M. Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test // PLoS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 7. p. e0200837.
GOST all authors (up to 50)
Copy
McGee M. Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test // PLoS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13. No. 7. p. e0200837.
Cite this
RIS
Copy
TY - JOUR
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0200837
UR - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837
TI - Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test
T2 - PLoS ONE
AU - McGee, Monnie
PY - 2018
DA - 2018/07/24
PB - Public Library of Science (PLoS)
SP - e0200837
IS - 7
VL - 13
PMID - 30040850
SN - 1932-6203
ER -
Cite this
BibTex (up to 50 authors)
Copy
@article{2018_McGee,
author = {Monnie McGee},
title = {Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test},
journal = {PLoS ONE},
year = {2018},
volume = {13},
publisher = {Public Library of Science (PLoS)},
month = {jul},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837},
number = {7},
pages = {e0200837},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0200837}
}
Cite this
MLA
Copy
McGee, Monnie. “Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, Jul. 2018, p. e0200837. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200837.