0
$\begingroup$

I am wondering what statistical significance test I can use for the following use case but I cannot find one. The data consists of more than two groups of unequal size where multiple samples in a group can come from the same individual and the outcome variable is non-normally distributed for every group but an individual only appears in one group. Thus, I am looking for a test for dependent groups (within-group dependence) that can ideally handle non-normal data (or it could be transformed) for more than two groups. Any help is greatly appreciated!

I think I can use the Wilcoxon rank sums test for two groups (if the equal variance assumptions holds) but would like a test that accepts more than two groups.

As context: I need to do this analysis for my master thesis and a I seemingly can not find an answer anywhere

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome to Cross Validated! What would you do in a simpler setting, such as with normality? $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented Jun 16, 2023 at 16:28

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

You're focusing on normality of the data, which doesn't matter in a robust sample size, and ignoring the correlated data, which does matter. Anyway, Wilcoxon doesn't work on a $k$-way test, $k>2$. You're thinking of Kruskal Wallis in that case. But forget about rank-based statistics for the moment. Correlated data introduce intrinsic issues with testing and 95% CI calculation that don't resolve with moderately large samples. What you probably need is a GEE so you can link repeated measures within groups before performing inference. An exchangeable correlation is a common choice, something called a repeated measure ANOVA.

You can't assess normality without a graphic, and you could do more to describe what you saw. While normality isn't a formal requirement for GEE (or ANOVA, or a t-test), we might guess you encounter a common form - skewed data. Then consider a log transform of the data to a. improve inference and b. improve interpretation of the results. When the $y$ is log transformed, the hypothesis is essentially the same - a 0 mean difference corresponds to a 0 geometric mean difference, but a significant result is described in different terms - if you exponentiate the mean log difference, the value is a percentage difference between response among groups.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.