Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

st: RE: swilk test Ho:


From   "Martin Weiss" <martin.weiss@uni-tuebingen.de>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   st: RE: swilk test Ho:
Date   Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:55:00 +0200

Well, your H0 is correct. The interpretation of test results is more
intricate, though. Non-rejection of the null does not imply that the data
are normally distributed; it does mean that you do not find convincing
evidence against the assertion that they derive from a normal distribution.
Note that the 95% confidence level that you are implying in your post means
that you will falsely reject the null in 5% of your tests. The information
that tests such as -swilk- provide is less than most users imagine... 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Carlo Georges
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 9:35 AM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: st: swilk test Ho:

In using the shapiro wilk test for testing normality, is it correct that the
H0 (NULL hypothsis) is :H0 data are normally distributed, so when p< 0,05 we
reject Ho and data are not normally distributed.
Conversely if p> 0,05 data are normally distributed.

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index