Mann-Whitney U test and t-test

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 REHABILITATION
Robert Wall Emerson
{"title":"Mann-Whitney U test and t-test","authors":"Robert Wall Emerson","doi":"10.1177/0145482X221150592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (JVIB), the article entitled, “The effect of a training video with audio description on the breast selfexamination of women with visual impairments,” by Çelik and İldan Çalım, notes that some of their primary quantitative measures do not satisfy the requirements for normality, so they are not distributed along a bell curve (for more background on this topic, review the Statistical Sidebar from the May-June issue of 2018). Because of this issue, they chose a non-parametric equivalent to the parametric statistical test they would typically use. Let us unpack that statement a bit. At its core, a parametric statistical test is one that assumes the dependent variable is normally distributed and bases its calculations on means and standard deviations. There is also a requirement that there should be enough scores in each group being compared so that the means and standard deviations are not swayed too much by outliers in the data. What constitutes “enough scores” is a matter of debate. Some say there should be at least 30 scores in each group, others simply say more is better than less. More is better than less, but you can get away with fewer than 30 scores in a group if the spread of scores in your data is small, you have tight controls on extraneous variables influencing your data, and your study design and analytical approach has additional safeguards against the influence of outliers. But these matters have more to do with study design than statistical analysis. If your data fail to satisfy the basic requirements of normal distribution, as in the article under discussion in this sidebar, then a parametric statistical test is not appropriate, because parametric tests are based on means and standard deviations. They assume that the central tendency of the normal curve (eg, most scores tend to be in the center of the curve) is in play and driving the mean of the groups being compared. If this assumption is not true, then the theoretical curve behind a group of scores is skewed to one side or the other of the curve and the mean is no longer the best estimate for representing the group of scores. Nonparametric tests were developed to accomplish the same kinds of group comparisons that parametric tests are capable of doing, but without relying on means to do them. In the article under consideration, if the Champion’s Health Belief Model (CHBM) scale scores had conformed to the normal distribution parameters, the authors would have used an independent groups t-test to compare the data of two groups: the group of women who watched the video with audio description and the group who watched the video without description. Since there are two groups, a t-test would have been used; since different women were in the two groups, the independent groups version would have been used. But, since the CHBM scores were not normally distributed, the authors used the Mann-Whitney U test as the nonparametric alternative, which gives us the chance to see how the two tests are related. The t-test equation","PeriodicalId":47438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","volume":"117 1","pages":"99 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X221150592","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In this issue of the Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness (JVIB), the article entitled, “The effect of a training video with audio description on the breast selfexamination of women with visual impairments,” by Çelik and İldan Çalım, notes that some of their primary quantitative measures do not satisfy the requirements for normality, so they are not distributed along a bell curve (for more background on this topic, review the Statistical Sidebar from the May-June issue of 2018). Because of this issue, they chose a non-parametric equivalent to the parametric statistical test they would typically use. Let us unpack that statement a bit. At its core, a parametric statistical test is one that assumes the dependent variable is normally distributed and bases its calculations on means and standard deviations. There is also a requirement that there should be enough scores in each group being compared so that the means and standard deviations are not swayed too much by outliers in the data. What constitutes “enough scores” is a matter of debate. Some say there should be at least 30 scores in each group, others simply say more is better than less. More is better than less, but you can get away with fewer than 30 scores in a group if the spread of scores in your data is small, you have tight controls on extraneous variables influencing your data, and your study design and analytical approach has additional safeguards against the influence of outliers. But these matters have more to do with study design than statistical analysis. If your data fail to satisfy the basic requirements of normal distribution, as in the article under discussion in this sidebar, then a parametric statistical test is not appropriate, because parametric tests are based on means and standard deviations. They assume that the central tendency of the normal curve (eg, most scores tend to be in the center of the curve) is in play and driving the mean of the groups being compared. If this assumption is not true, then the theoretical curve behind a group of scores is skewed to one side or the other of the curve and the mean is no longer the best estimate for representing the group of scores. Nonparametric tests were developed to accomplish the same kinds of group comparisons that parametric tests are capable of doing, but without relying on means to do them. In the article under consideration, if the Champion’s Health Belief Model (CHBM) scale scores had conformed to the normal distribution parameters, the authors would have used an independent groups t-test to compare the data of two groups: the group of women who watched the video with audio description and the group who watched the video without description. Since there are two groups, a t-test would have been used; since different women were in the two groups, the independent groups version would have been used. But, since the CHBM scores were not normally distributed, the authors used the Mann-Whitney U test as the nonparametric alternative, which gives us the chance to see how the two tests are related. The t-test equation
Mann-Whitney U检验和t检验
在本期的《视觉障碍与失明杂志》(JVIB)上,Çelik和İldan Çalım发表了一篇题为“带音频描述的培训视频对视障女性乳房自检的影响”的文章,指出他们的一些主要定量指标不满足正态性要求,因此它们没有呈钟形曲线分布(有关该主题的更多背景信息,请参阅2018年5 - 6月号的统计侧栏)。由于这个问题,他们选择了一种与他们通常使用的参数统计检验等效的非参数检验。让我们稍微解释一下这句话。参数统计检验的核心是假设因变量是正态分布的,并根据均值和标准差进行计算。还有一个要求是,在每一个被比较的组中都应该有足够的分数,这样平均值和标准差就不会受到数据中的异常值的太大影响。什么是“足够的分数”是一个有争议的问题。有人说每组至少要有30分,也有人说多总比少好。多总比少好,但如果你的数据中分数的分布很小,你对影响你数据的无关变量有严格的控制,你的研究设计和分析方法有额外的保护措施来防止异常值的影响,那么你可以在一组中得到少于30分的分数。但这些问题更多地与研究设计有关,而不是统计分析。如果您的数据不能满足正态分布的基本要求,如本侧栏讨论的文章所述,那么参数统计检验就不合适了,因为参数检验是基于均值和标准差的。他们假设正常曲线的集中趋势(例如,大多数分数倾向于在曲线的中心)在起作用,并推动被比较组的平均值。如果这个假设不成立,那么一组分数背后的理论曲线就会向曲线的一边或另一边倾斜,平均值就不再是代表这组分数的最佳估计值。非参数检验的发展是为了完成与参数检验能够完成的相同类型的组比较,但不依赖于手段来完成它们。在考虑的文章中,如果Champion’s Health Belief Model (CHBM)量表得分符合正态分布参数,作者将使用独立组t检验来比较两组数据:观看有音频描述的视频的妇女组和观看没有描述的视频的妇女组。因为有两组,所以应该使用t检验;由于两组中有不同的女性,因此将使用独立组版本。但是,由于CHBM分数不是正态分布,作者使用Mann-Whitney U检验作为非参数替代,这使我们有机会看到这两个检验是如何相关的。t检验方程
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness is the essential professional resource for information about visual impairment (that is, blindness or low vision). The international peer-reviewed journal of record in the field, it delivers current research and best practice information, commentary from authoritative experts on critical topics, News From the Field, and a calendar of important events. Practitioners and researchers, policymakers and administrators, counselors and advocates rely on JVIB for its delivery of cutting-edge research and the most up-to-date practices in the field of visual impairment and blindness. Available in print and online 24/7, JVIB offers immediate access to information from the leading researchers, teachers of students with visual impairments (often referred to as TVIs), orientation and mobility (O&M) practitioners, vision rehabilitation therapists (often referred to as VRTs), early interventionists, and low vision therapists (often referred to as LVTs) in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信