+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Effect size for small non-parametric data

  1. #1
    Points: 21, Level: 1
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 29

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Effect size for small non-parametric data




    Hi Guys,

    I would like to run a effect size test for a very small non-parametric analysis (n=4 per group), which one is the most recommended test?

    Thank you in advance.

  2. #2
    TS Contributor
    Points: 17,779, Level: 84
    Level completed: 86%, Points required for next Level: 71
    Karabiner's Avatar
    Location
    FC Schalke 04, Germany
    Posts
    2,542
    Thanks
    56
    Thanked 640 Times in 602 Posts

    Re: Effect size for small non-parametric data

    I would like to run a effect size test for a very small non-parametric analysis (n=4 per group), which one is the most recommended test?
    If you mean significance test, then the recommendation depends
    on the number of groups, the scale level of the data, the research
    question, and design features such as: are these independent or
    dependent measures.

    With kind regards

    K.

  3. #3
    Points: 21, Level: 1
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 29

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Effect size for small non-parametric data

    Hi Karabiner, Thanks for your kind reply.

    Let me try to be more specific. I have two groups (n=4, before-after same subject), using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test my p-value was not significant.
    Seems very likely that my analysis is underpowered by small sample size. I would like to use a test to estimate my effect size. Just to exemplify, when my data is parametric, I usually perform paired t-test associate with Cohen's D. I would like to know which test would be the non-parametric surrogate for Cohen's D.

    Thanks for your time and attention.

    Kind regards.

  4. #4
    TS Contributor
    Points: 18,889, Level: 87
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    CowboyBear's Avatar
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,062
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 427 Times in 328 Posts

    Re: Effect size for small non-parametric data

    Could you describe your dependent variable?

    Effect sizes do not necessarily have to be standardized. You could simply report the mean difference on whatever your DV is. If the DV has any kind of meaningful unit of measurement, this is probably the most informative thing to do. If you really want a standardized measure, you could just stick with Cohen's D (it doesn't have a normality assumption, or use something designed for ordinal data like somers d or kendall's tau.

  5. #5
    Points: 21, Level: 1
    Level completed: 41%, Points required for next Level: 29

    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Effect size for small non-parametric data

    Hi CowboyBear,

    Many thanks for your reply. My dependent variable is the number of bacteria in a specific material, before and after the exposure to the human saliva.

    Kind regards

  6. #6
    TS Contributor
    Points: 18,889, Level: 87
    Level completed: 8%, Points required for next Level: 461
    CowboyBear's Avatar
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,062
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 427 Times in 328 Posts

    Re: Effect size for small non-parametric data


    Quote Originally Posted by fabinha View Post
    Hi CowboyBear,

    Many thanks for your reply. My dependent variable is the number of bacteria in a specific material, before and after the exposure to the human saliva.

    Kind regards
    I would say that the most direct and meaningful effect size would simply be a mean difference, or maybe something the percentage reduction in number of bacteria occurring after the exposure to human saliva. Standardized effect sizes like Cohen's d are popular especially in fields like psychology where the variables used often don't have meaningful units of measurement, so we use the standard deviation as a unit of measurement instead. Your DV does have very meaningful units, so there seems to be no obvious reason to add the complexity of a standardized effect size. That said, if you really wanted to report Cohen's D, there is no obvious statistical reason why it would be inappropriate. Cohen's D does not require the assumption of normal distributions within each level of the IV.

+ 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