+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Pearson or Spearman - a slightly violated assumption of normally distribution? SPSS

  1. #1
    Points: 4, Level: 1
    Level completed: 7%, Points required for next Level: 46

    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Pearson or Spearman - a slightly violated assumption of normally distribution? SPSS



    Hi!

    I am doing a study as part of Research Methods 3 for my Psych degree and have two questionnaires: one is on attitudes to homosexuality, the other on religiosity. I have just got all the data in and am attempting to analyse it, however, I am hitting a bit of a brick wall as to using Pearson's r or Spearman's rho.

    I do not have any outliers and there is a linear relationship between the two variables. The only problem is with assessing how normally distributed my data is.

    My skewness and kurtosis values are as follows:
    Homosexuality
    • Skewness: -.357
    • Kurtosis: -1.130

    Religiosity
    • Skewness: .602
    • Kurtosis: -.861.

    They are all within the +1/-1 bounds bar the kurtosis on the first variable. My stats/SPSS guide states that for Pearson's r to be used the data needs to be 'approximately normally distributed' which it could be argued mine is, but equally that it isn't.

    So, I conducted a Shapiro-Wilk which gave me back this:

    Shapiro-Wilk
    Statistic df Sig.
    Homosexuality .927 40 .013
    Religiosity .912 40 .004

    So there's further evidence for it being normally distributed, but my tutors have told us they would generally prefer us to go by skewness/kurtosis values.

    Overall, I'm a bit confused and lost as to what to do. My tutor is a part timer and won't check her emails for a few days yet, so I would really appreciate anyone that can help me!

    Becky

  2. #2
    Wrokin' for the Raptors
    Points: 6,976, Level: 55
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 174
    spunky's Avatar
    Location
    vancouver, canada
    Posts
    973
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 197 Times in 147 Posts

    Re: Pearson or Spearman - a slightly violated assumption of normally distribution? SP

    how were attitudes towards homosexuality and religiosity measured? i'm willing to bet it's some sort of likert-type scale but it would be nice to know the number of category options before suggesting anything...
    Dason on the Cauchy distribution:
    "YOU BETTER LOOK OUT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO GET YOU"

  3. #3
    Points: 2,480, Level: 30
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 120

    Posts
    191
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    Re: Pearson or Spearman - a slightly violated assumption of normally distribution? SP


    1. As spunky is likely getting at, if your data are ordinal (i.e. Likert) you probably shouldn't be using a Pearson test no matter what your normality tests are telling you. You know, a priori and quite definitively, that your data are not normal because they are not continuous.

    2. Technically, you should never do a normality test on your data and then choose to do a parametric or non-parametric test on the same data on the bais of that test result, anyway. Either decide in advance which test to use or do a normality test on an exploratory subset of data that is not used for the real test.

    3. If the data is Likert you will have to deal with ties. Be sure you are using software for the Spearman test that adaquately deals with ties.

+ 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