+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

  1. #1
    Points: 328, Level: 6
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 22

    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    question about Kruskal-Wallis test



    Howdy,
    I am comparing duration of a behaviour between difference age classes (4 different classes) in squirrels for part of my thesis. I am restricted to using non-parametric tests because no transformation seems to normalize my data.

    When I run the Kuskal-Wallis test in SPSS I get significant differences between age classes (0.007).

    My question: is there a way to determine which age classes are significantly different from one-another without running a bunch of pairwise Mann-Whitney tests?

    Thanks for the advise,

    Molly

  2. #2
    Points: 3,041, Level: 33
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 9

    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    As far as I know there is no other way in SPSS other than running a 'bunch of pairwise Mann-Whitney tests' (corrected for multiple comparisons).
    In GraphPad, the Dunn's test is available for post-hoc comparisons after a Kruskall-Wallis. It might not be too difficult to implement though I would not know how. Alternatively, you can get GraphPad, it is a nice little package which draws much prettier graphs than SPSS!
    I hope it helps,
    Mousme

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to mousme For This Useful Post:

    squirrel (03-03-2012)

  4. #3
    Points: 1,494, Level: 21
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 6

    Posts
    70
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 27 Times in 25 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    Molly, if you're using a recent version of SPSS (18>) then post-hoc tests are automatically performed for the KW test when the omnibus statistic is significant. Unfortunately, they didn't make this obvious. You need to double click the test summary in your output and in the model viewer that opens click on the drop down menu on the bottom right and select the pairwise comparisons view and scroll down to see the results of the post-hoc tests.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to helicon For This Useful Post:

    squirrel (03-03-2012)

  6. #4
    Points: 328, Level: 6
    Level completed: 56%, Points required for next Level: 22

    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    Thank you for the helpful suggestions. I unfortunately only have 11.5 on the lab computers. However, I was able to download a free Graphpad trial for 30 days. I am using that for now and it has options to perform the Dunn's post test which is perfect for what I am needing.

    Thanks for the help!

  7. #5
    Points: 11, Level: 1
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 39

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    Hey Helicon!

    I just found about that way of post-hoc-Kruskal-Wallis-tests and am wondering now which post-hoc-test SPSS performs there and what's the difference between significance and adjusted significance. Since I ran Mann-Whitney-U-tests and also did Bonferroni-corrections, it doesn's seem to correlate exactly with one of them. I'm really helpless at the moment and I'm looking forward to a smart answer from your side ;-)

  8. #6
    TS Contributor
    Points: 5,570, Level: 48
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 180
    Karabiner's Avatar
    Location
    Schalke 04, Germany
    Posts
    846
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 196 Times in 189 Posts

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Karabiner For This Useful Post:

    Maik Krueger (10-17-2012)

  10. #7
    Points: 11, Level: 1
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 39

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    Thanks a lot Karabiner,

    but since I'm not a Statistics-Crack and I'm just using it for the analysis of my experiments, I'm wondering which value I should take now. Since I did the Bonferroni correction for my data, which should be more conservative than the post-hoc-tests of the Kruskal-Wallis, and it gives me more significant values than the Kruskal-Wallis-post-hocs, I'm really unsure which is the best way to interpret my data. Of course I want to have significant results, but they shouldn't be false positive. Thanks in advance for every useful hint!

    Regards

  11. #8
    TS Contributor
    Points: 5,570, Level: 48
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 180
    Karabiner's Avatar
    Location
    Schalke 04, Germany
    Posts
    846
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 196 Times in 189 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    How many groups do you have? How many pairwise comparison are
    carried out?

    With kind regards

    K.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Karabiner For This Useful Post:

    Maik Krueger (10-17-2012)

  13. #9
    Points: 11, Level: 1
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 39

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test

    I have 6 groups, and I end up with 15 comparisons. The Kruskal-Wallis-Post-Hoc adjusted significance gives me 2 significant results, Mann-Whitney-U with Bonferroni correction 4.

    Regards

  14. #10
    TS Contributor
    Points: 5,570, Level: 48
    Level completed: 10%, Points required for next Level: 180
    Karabiner's Avatar
    Location
    Schalke 04, Germany
    Posts
    846
    Thanks
    8
    Thanked 196 Times in 189 Posts

    Re: question about Kruskal-Wallis test


    I must admit that now I'm stuck. If you make all pairwise comparisons
    using two-tailed tests then indeed I would expect that Bonferroni's
    p/15 would not give more statistically significant results than Dunn's
    procedure. Since Bonferroni correction is still the standard for K-W post
    hoc (at least as far as I can see) and since it is conservative, I guess
    there's enough reason to stick to Bonferroni in the present case.

    With kind regards

    K.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts








Advertise on Talk Stats