18
$\begingroup$

My nonparametric text, Practical Nonparametric Statistics, often gives clean formulas for expectations, variances, test statistics, and the like, but includes the caveat that this only works if we ignore ties. When calculating the Mann-Whitney U Statistic, it is encouraged that you throw out tied pairs when comparing which is bigger.

I get that ties don't really tell us much about which population is bigger (if that's what we're interested in) since neither group is bigger than the other, but it doesn't seem like that would matter when developing asymptotic distributions.

Why then is it such a quandary dealing with ties in some nonparametric procedures? Is there a way of extracting any useful information from ties, rather than simply throwing them away?

EDIT: In regards to @whuber's comment, I checked my sources again, and some procedures use an average of ranks instead of dropping the tied values completely. While this seems more sensible in reference to retaining information, it also seems to me that it lacks rigor. The spirit of the question still stands, however.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Are you saying that Practical Nonparametric Statistics tells you to "throw out" data when they are tied? Could you perhaps be mis-interpreting its advice? Could you quote it exactly? $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented May 31, 2011 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is possible that I am misinterpreting the advice. From the same author: jstor.org/stable/2284536 "Wilcoxon suggested dropping the zeros from the data initially, and performing the test on the reduced set of data. If there are no nonzero ties this procedure results in a conditionally (given the number of zeros) distribution free test, and enables the existing exact tables of critical values to be used. For this reason, most books on nonparametric statistics incorporate Wilcoxon's method into their description of the test" $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2011 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ Granted, this is in reference to the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, but I have heard similar advice used in other NP procedures. In regards to the Mann-Whitney example, I went back and checked in the book, and you are correct that I am mistaken. With Mann-Whitney, the book recommends averaging the ranks of the tied values, ie: if ranks 6 and 7 are tied, giving each one a value of 6.5. $\endgroup$ Commented May 31, 2011 at 18:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. There are rigorous ways to account for tied groups. They are important when working with censored (but continuous) data, because frequently the censored values constitute a large tied group. For the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests, see chapter 18 of R. O. Gilbert, *Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring." Formulas involving tied data can get complicated, but in some cases (like the K-W test) all you need to do is compute an ANOVA table for the ranks. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented May 31, 2011 at 19:17

1 Answer 1

16
$\begingroup$

Most of the work on non-parametrics was originally done assuming that there was an underlying continuous distribution in which ties would be impossible (if measured accurately enough). The theory can then be based on the distributions of order statistics (which are a lot simpler without ties) or other formulas. In some cases the statistic works out to be approximately normal which makes things really easy. When ties are introduced either because the data was rounded or is naturally discrete, then the standard assumptions do not hold. The approximation may still be good enough in some cases, but not in others, so often the easiest thing to do is just give a warning that these formulas don't work with ties.

There are tools for some of the standard non-parametric tests that have worked out the exact distribution when ties are present. The exactRankTests package for R is one example.

One simple way to deal with ties is to use randomization tests like permutation tests or bootstrapping. These don't worry about asymptotic distributions, but use the data as it is, ties and all (note that with a lot of ties, even these techniques may have low power).

There was an article a few years back (I thought in the American Statistician, but I am not finding it) that discussed the ideas of ties and some of the things that you can do with them. One point is that it depends on what question you are asking, what to do with ties can be very different in a superiority test vs. a non-inferiority test.

$\endgroup$

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.