for the following 3 values 222,1122,45444

WolframAlpha gives 0.706

Excel, using =SKEW(222,1122,45444) gives 1.729

What explains the difference?

  • $\begingroup$ Is this question about empirical or maybe nonparametric skewness or about estimating skewness? $\endgroup$ – gwr Nov 14 '15 at 13:21

They are using different methods to compute the skew. Searching in the help pages for skewness() within the R package e1071 yields:

Joanes and Gill (1998) discuss three methods for estimating skewness:

Type 1:
g_1 = m_3 / m_2^(3/2). This is the typical definition used in many older textbooks.
Type 2:
G_1 = g_1 * sqrt(n(n-1)) / (n-2). Used in SAS and SPSS.
Type 3:
b_1 = m_3 / s^3 = g_1 ((n-1)/n)^(3/2). Used in MINITAB and BMDP.
All three skewness measures are unbiased under normality.

#Why are these numbers different?
> skewness(c(222,1122,45444), type = 2)
[1] 1.729690
> skewness(c(222,1122,45444), type = 1)
[1] 0.7061429

Here's a link to the paper referenced if someone has the credentials to get it for further discussion or education: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9884.00122/abstract

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It's not mathematically possible for "all three skewness measures to be unbiased," because (obviously) their expectations all differ. Perhaps you mean asymptotically unbiased? $\endgroup$ – whuber Apr 3 '11 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber - I'm going to defer to Friedrich.Leisch@R-project.org who maintains the e1071 package for clarification on what he meant specifically there. If my post wasn't clear, that comes from the help page for skewness() $\endgroup$ – Chase Apr 3 '11 at 2:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @whuber I thought the same so I upvoted your comment then started reading the Joanes & Gill paper (start of section 3, p185) and realised we're wrong : a normal distribution has zero skewness, so any estimator that is a multiple of $g_1$ is unbiased under normality. Unfortunately there's no way to undo a comment upvote. $\endgroup$ – onestop Apr 3 '11 at 6:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The point is that $g_1 = m_3 / m_2^{3/2}$, where $m_2$ and $m_3$ are the second and third moments about the mean, is the population skewness. As a sample statistic, it then raises similar issues to unbiased estimates of standard deviation, leading to corrections based on $n$ which have some justification but still do not produce unbiased estimates. But I think it is not very helpful to say that these are unbiased estimates of skewness for symmetric distributions; so too is 0, which has a lower variance but is inconsistent and is useless for estimating skewness of asymmetric distributions. $\endgroup$ – Henry Apr 3 '11 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ @onestop @Henry I agree with you. $\endgroup$ – whuber Apr 3 '11 at 17:45

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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