Timeline for Validity of using a combination of Wilcoxon tests and Spearman rho as an alternative to GLM?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
23 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S Dec 15, 2018 at 12:03 | history | bounty ended | Tilen | ||
S Dec 15, 2018 at 12:03 | history | notice removed | Tilen | ||
Dec 15, 2018 at 11:51 | comment | added | Tilen | @Björn, are you saying that to determine which predictors are likely drivers of the response, one would either A) fit a pre-specified full model and judge "importance" (yes or no) of predictors based on p-values, or B) use something like AIC to determine which of these predictors of the full model should stay in, but not C) both? Did I get that right? If that is the case, would you opt for A or B to assess which variables seem "important" for the response? | |
Dec 11, 2018 at 14:53 | comment | added | Tilen | @whuber, yes, and that is where my confusion comes from. I was surprised by this choice of "If normal, let's do a GLM, if non-normal, let's do the Wilcoxon instead", which is why I'm asking this question. Chris, I considered that, but I did not wish to publicly call out the authors (also because I know some of them), but rather inquired about the approach itself. | |
Dec 10, 2018 at 10:15 | comment | added | Björn | In addition to the good answers: doing different tests based on outcome of normality tests or naively doing a test on a model buildt using some model selection procedure (e.g. AIC based) invalidates p-values. Using a single pre-specified full model is by far the easiest way to get valid p-values assuming that your model assumptions are correct. If some model selection (whether normality testing, deciding what variables to include etc.) was done, the procedure for getting p-values needs to take that into account. It's possible to do, but requires extra contortions. | |
Dec 8, 2018 at 14:30 | answer | added | Frank Harrell | timeline score: 5 | |
Dec 8, 2018 at 0:15 | answer | added | overdisperse | timeline score: 4 | |
Dec 7, 2018 at 21:01 | comment | added | Chris | Can you provide a link to the paper? | |
Dec 7, 2018 at 20:27 | comment | added | whuber♦ | I have a hard time seeing how these approaches even address the same problem. A GLM is a regression model (of a conditional response) whereas the Wilcoxon test is a particular hypothesis test of a difference in location and Spearman rank correlation is a descriptive statistic of co-variation! It's a little like asking whether riding a bike or going to the beach are valid alternatives to eating an apple. | |
Dec 7, 2018 at 20:17 | answer | added | Heteroskedastic Jim | timeline score: 9 | |
S Dec 7, 2018 at 18:21 | history | bounty started | Tilen | ||
S Dec 7, 2018 at 18:21 | history | notice added | Tilen | Draw attention | |
Jul 25, 2017 at 22:43 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackStats/status/889979447025299456 | ||
Mar 27, 2017 at 12:18 | history | edited | Tilen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
Mar 27, 2017 at 12:05 | history | edited | Tilen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edited the title, to make it clearer
|
Mar 17, 2017 at 11:00 | review | Suggested edits | |||
Mar 17, 2017 at 11:59 | |||||
Mar 17, 2017 at 10:24 | history | edited | Tilen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body
|
Mar 17, 2017 at 9:44 | history | edited | Tilen |
edited tags
|
|
Mar 17, 2017 at 9:32 | history | edited | Tilen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Corrected minor inconsistencies, clarified the questions.
|
S Mar 17, 2017 at 9:04 | history | edited | F. Tusell | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted unrelated questions etc. in the bodytext . changed tags
|
S Mar 17, 2017 at 9:04 | history | suggested | user10619 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted unrelated questions etc. in the bodytext . changed tags
|
Mar 17, 2017 at 7:11 | review | Suggested edits | |||
S Mar 17, 2017 at 9:04 | |||||
Mar 16, 2017 at 18:43 | history | asked | Tilen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |