Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: RE: Re: st: RE: kolmogorov-Smirmov Output


From   "Nick Cox" <[email protected]>
To   <[email protected]>
Subject   RE: RE: Re: st: RE: kolmogorov-Smirmov Output
Date   Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:53:47 -0000

The word "exact" in statistics is, I assert, always a misnomer. 

Even when the result so labelled comes out of a complete combinatorial
enumeration there is usually a hidden independence assumption somewhere
that is often dubious given clustering, time or space structure or the
nature of sampling. And usually the argument is calculus-based, with yet
more assumptions behind it, or something like a bootstrap, with its own
different flavour of approximation. 

Stata's implementation of Kolmogorov-Smirnov [NB spelling] is no
exception to that. At best, it uses an approximation. 

A bigger point (in my experience) is that this kind of test is not
really useful in research. I can sense a genuine substantive and
scientific interest in whether males and females differ in some way. If
the K-S test doesn't confirm a difference, the main signal is that your
data are inadequate to detect it. If it does, the big question is to say
what that difference is. Why not short-circuit the process and look
directly at a quantile-quantile plot or cumulative distribution plot
(official -qqplot-, or -qplot- and -distplot- from SJ)? 

Nick 
[email protected] 

[email protected]

So, are my conclusions exact? I do not know if I have to consider the 
first and the second p-values too..

Garry

Why not use the exact p-value, as reported by

ksmirnov x, by(group) exact


*
*   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 1996–2024 StataCorp LLC   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index