Ranking of Normality Tests: An Appraisal through Skewed Alternative Space
AbstractIn social and health sciences, many statistical procedures and estimation techniques rely on the underlying distributional assumption of normality of the data. Non-normality may lead to incorrect statistical inferences. This study evaluates the performance of selected normality tests within the stringency framework for skewed alternative space. The stringency concept allows us to rank the tests uniquely. The Bonett and Seier test (Tw) turns out to represent the best statistics for slightly skewed alternatives and the Anderson–Darling (AD); Chen–Shapiro (CS); Shapiro–Wilk (W); and Bispo, Marques, and Pestana (BCMR) statistics are the best choices for moderately skewed alternative distributions. The maximum loss of Jarque–Bera (JB) and its robust form (RJB), in terms of deviations from the power envelope, is greater than 50%, even for large sample sizes, which makes them less attractive in testing the hypothesis of normality against the moderately skewed alternatives. On balance, all selected normality tests except Tw and Daniele Coin’s COIN-test performed exceptionally well against the highly skewed alternative space. View Full-Text
Share & Cite This Article
Islam, T.U. Ranking of Normality Tests: An Appraisal through Skewed Alternative Space. Symmetry 2019, 11, 872.
Islam TU. Ranking of Normality Tests: An Appraisal through Skewed Alternative Space. Symmetry. 2019; 11(7):872.Chicago/Turabian Style
Islam, Tanweer U. 2019. "Ranking of Normality Tests: An Appraisal through Skewed Alternative Space." Symmetry 11, no. 7: 872.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.