Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Comparative evaluation of goodness of fit tests for normal distribution using simulation and empirical data Cover

Comparative evaluation of goodness of fit tests for normal distribution using simulation and empirical data

Biometrical Letters
Volume 57 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)
By: Achilleas Anastasiou,  Alex Karagrigoriou and  Anastasios Katsileros  
Open Access
|Dec 2020

References

  1. Adefisoye J.O., Golam Kibria B.M., George F. (2016): Performances of Several Univariate Tests of Normality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Biometrics & Biostatistics 7: 322.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Atwood J, S.haik S., Watts M. (2003): Are Crop Yields Normally Distributed? A Reexamination. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 888–901.10.1111/1467-8276.00495
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Atkinson A.C., Riani M. (2012): Robust diagnostic regression analysis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Buccola S.T. (1986): Testing for Nonnormality in Farm Net Returns. American Agricultural Economics Association: 334–343.10.2307/1241435
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Chen S., Miranda M. (2008): Modeling Texas Dryland Cotton Yields, With Application to Crop Insurance Actuarial Rating. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40(1): 239–252.10.1017/S107407080002808X
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Day R.H. (1965): Probability Distributions of Field Crop Yields. Journal of Farm Economics 47(3): 713–741.10.2307/1236284
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. Dixon W. (1954): Power under normality of several nonparametric tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 25: 610–614.10.1214/aoms/1177728732
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Fox J. (1991): Regression diagnostics: An introduction, Vol. 79. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.10.4135/9781412985604
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Glass G.V., Peckham P.D., Sanders J.R. (1972): Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance. Review of Educational Research 42(3): 237–288.10.3102/00346543042003237
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Hennessy D. (2009): Crop Yield Skewness and the Normal Distribution. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 34(1): 34–52.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Islam T.U. (2017): Stringency-based ranking of normality tests. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation 46: 655–668.10.1080/03610918.2014.977916
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Jarque C.M., Bera A.K. (1987): A Test for Normality of Observations and Regression Residuals. International Statistical Review 55: 163–172.10.2307/1403192
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Kozak M., Piepho H-P. (2018): What’s normal anyway? Residual plots are more telling than significance tests when checking ANOVA assumptions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 204: 86–98.10.1111/jac.12220
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. Krauczi E. (2009): A study of the quantile correlation test for normality. TEST 18: 156–165.10.1007/s11749-007-0074-6
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Limpert E., Stahel W.A. (2011): Problems with Using the Normal Distribution – and Ways to Improve Quality and Efficiency of Data Analysis. PLoS ONE 6(7): e21403.10.1371/journal.pone.0021403313645421779325
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. Moss C.B., Shonkwiler J.S. (1993): Estimating Yield Distributions with a Stochastic Trend and Nonnormal Errors. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(4): 1056—1062.10.2307/1243993
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. Stroup W.W. (2015): Rethinking the Analysis of Non-Normal Data in Plant and Soil Science. Agronomy Journal 107: 811–827.10.2134/agronj2013.0342
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. R Core Team R (2020): A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. Ramirez O.A., Misra S. (2003): Field J. Crop-Yield Distributions Revisited. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 108—120.10.1111/1467-8276.00106
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Romao X., Delgado R., Costa A. (2010): An empirical power comparison of univariate goodness-of-fit tests for normality. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 80: 1–47.10.1080/00949650902740824
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Seier E. (2002): Comparison of Tests for Univariate Normality. InterStat Statistical Journal 1: 1–17.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Tukey J.W. (1960): A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling, Stanford Univ. Press: 448–485.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. Yap B.W., Sim C.H. (2011): Comparisons of various types of normality tests. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 81: 1–15.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Yazici B., Yolacan S. (2007): A comparison of various tests of normality. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 77: 175–183.10.1080/10629360600678310
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bile-2020-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2199-577X | Journal ISSN: 1896-3811
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 237 - 251
Published on: Dec 31, 2020
Published by: Polish Biometric Society
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Keywords:
type I error,
power,
normality tests,
normal and alternative distributions,
simulation
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Bioinformatics,
Life sciences, other,
Mathematics,
Probability and statistics,
Applied mathematics

© 2020 Achilleas Anastasiou, Alex Karagrigoriou, Anastasios Katsileros, published by Polish Biometric Society
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 57 (2020): Issue 2 (December 2020)Next article