Timeline for Transitivity of Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2023 at 20:43 | comment | added | Thomas Lumley | Actually, I'm no longer convinced about transitivity, but the rest holds | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 5:36 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Sep 18, 2023 at 5:13 | answer | added | Glen_b | timeline score: 2 | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 4:18 | comment | added | Glen_b | ... at least in large samples, by the look of it. +1 | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 2:46 | vote | accept | calmcc | ||
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:58 | answer | added | Thomas Lumley | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:56 | comment | added | Thomas Lumley | You do have transitivity. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:48 | comment | added | Glen_b | I'm not even sure you necessarily have transitivity in the population version of the one-sample Hodges-Lehmann statistic (median Walsh-average) on pair-differences across three populations. If you don't then p-values might end up anywhere. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:36 | comment | added | calmcc | @Glen_b - yes and yes! | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:34 | comment | added | Glen_b | You're doing signed rank tests on three sets of pair-differences? Is this with complete data (no missing values anywhere)? | |
| S Sep 17, 2023 at 14:48 | review | First questions | |||
| Sep 17, 2023 at 15:55 | |||||
| S Sep 17, 2023 at 14:48 | history | asked | calmcc | CC BY-SA 4.0 |