Although I know there are several post in this forum that are about this topic, none of them was useful in my case.

I have the next data:

     V1     V2
1.62790698   1
 1.62790698  1
 7.95006570  1
 8.60709593  1
 7.82945736  2
14.18604651  2
 4.65116279  2
 3.87596899  2
 3.90930414  2
 0.39093041  2
 6.18421053  2
 2.82894737  2
15.55929352  2
 6.98065601  2
 0.07751938  3
 4.03100775  3
 4.65116279  3
 7.82945736  3
 9.18686474  3
 8.36591087  3
12.74433151  3
 1.60281470  3
 5.78947368  3
13.81578947  3
 1.57894737  3
 8.48684211  3
 6.98065601  3
 5.88730025  3
12.86795627  3
16.31623213  3

The column on the left represents the measured variable and the column on the right represents the groups. So, there are 3 different groups.

When I introduce this data into R commander, I performed Shapiro-Wilk tests and Bartlett test. Due to all the requisites that are necessary to perform an ANOVA are not accomplished, I decided to perform instead a Kruskal-Wallis test.

> kruskal.test(V1 ~ V2, data=Datos)

    Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test

data:  V1 by V2
Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared = 6.5558, df = 2, p-value = 0.03771

As you can see, there are statistical differences.

On the other hand, I thought about performing a post-hoc analysis in order to know how my three groups are grouped according to their differences. According to this, I install and charged the PMCMR library. I introduced the next code:

posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x=V1, g=V2, method="Tukey")

With the next results:

> posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x=V1, g=V2, method="Tukey")

    Pairwise comparisons using Tukey and Kramer (Nemenyi) test  
                   with Tukey-Dist approximation for independent samples 

data:  V1 and V2 

  1     2    
2 0.211 -    
3 1.000 0.098

P value adjustment method: none

However, a warning also appeared:

[50] NOTA: Aviso en posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x = V1, g = V2, method = "Tukey") :
Ties are present, p-values are not corrected.

On the other hand, when I execute:

posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x=V1, g=V2, method="Chisq")

I get the next results:

> posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x=V1, g=V2, method="Chisq")

    Pairwise comparisons using Nemenyi-test with Chi-squared    
                       approximation for independent samples 

data:  V1 and V2 

  1    2   
2 0.24 -   
3 1.00 0.12

P value adjustment method: none

This one also have a warning:

[51] NOTA: Aviso en posthoc.kruskal.nemenyi.test(x = V1, g = V2, method = "Chisq") :
Ties are present. Chi-sq was corrected for ties.

So, my questions are:

  1. If I get a Kruskal Wallis p value lower than 0.05, I would expect to have any statistical differences when obtaining pairwise comparisons, which is not the case.
  2. Is it right the way I proceed?
  3. Is there any other possibility or code (implemented in different libraries) to get to what I wanted?
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not an expertise, but This page bellow help me, maybe help you. rcompanion.org/rcompanion/d_06.html $\endgroup$
    – user110399
    Mar 30, 2016 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ It would help the OP if you were to elaborate on the key points in the link you've cited. Many times links are broken and the points being made can be lost. Other times the links can be to complex documents where it's not at all obvious what was intended. Please revise your response. $\endgroup$
    – user78229
    Mar 30, 2016 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ I havn't worked with your data but Dunn's test [using dunn.test package in R] or Conover-Iman test [using conover.test package in R] can be used as post-hoc for Kruskal-Wallis test. $\endgroup$ Nov 11, 2016 at 10:57

2 Answers 2

  1. heteroskedasticity seems to be the thing you're most worried about -- why go to Kruskal Wallis rather than just a Welch adjustment? However it happens that your standard deviations are almost constant (3.9, 4.8, 4.7). Why would that very modest amount of change in spread by of concern?

  2. a rejection of the omnibus null doesn't necessarily imply any of the individual comparisons will be significant.

  3. formal hypothesis tests of assumptions aren't necessarily useful -- we don't necessarily believe any of the assumptions are exactly true, what matters is their impact on your inference, which a p-value in a hypothesis test really doesn't tell you. (You might easily reject the null of constant variance, but if the standard deviations by group don't change by a substantial amount (possibly by a good deal more than you can detect by a test, depending on sample size), it may hardly matter. On the other hand, failure to reject in small samples should be no consolation at all.


Try this code:

kruskalmc(V1 ~ V2))

The only challenge is that this test does not eliminate identical group combinations such as 1-1,2-2, 3-3

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It is not clear what you are saying. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2018 at 13:45

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.