 |
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]
Re: st: ttest and log transformation
I want to back up and ask what you want to do, and what you think the t
test would do for you.
It is a big jump from a very general question like
How do these distributions differ?
to a specific question like
Are the means of these distributions the same, or different?
or
How do the means of these distributions differ?
The second and third require at a minimum that means are useful for your
data. t tests are not general answers to the first.
A useful direct way to compare two distributions is through -qqplot-.
That can give you a direct signal on whether two distributions differ by
an additive shift, which (with other stuff) lies behind the t-test, or
by a multiplicative shift, which (with other stuff) lies behind a t-test
on logged values, or, as I suspect, something much more complicated.
What best to do with data that can be + or -, are long-tailed and skew
in one direction is not, it seems, often discussed, although it is
exactly what I would expect with say company profit and loss data, which
are hardly exotic. The help file -transint- on SSC has some discussion
on a neglog transformation.
Nick
[email protected]
Richard Harvey wrote:
I hope I can ask a fairly basic stats question. I have a variable that
i need to compare across two groups.
the summary stats for the variable NAN across the groups is as below.
The negative values are legitimate.
group | N mean p50 max
min skewness kurtosis
group1 | 2537 -77535 5278 19051350
-46844688 -11.23 311.1
group2 | 3031 -211373 4620 4609996
-32617714 -11.18 185.6
Total | 5568 -150391 4958 19051350
-46844688 -11.33 278.4
If a do a ttest on the log transformed data, is it appropriate to add
an arbitrary constraint to make the negative values positive? Is the
ttest indeed any good for this data, or should I be looking at some
non parametric tests.
to make the numbers more manageble is divide by 1000,000 and the
summary stats look like this
group N mean p50 max min skewness kurtosis
group1 2537 -.07753 .005278 19.05 -46.84 -11.23 311.1
group2 3031 -.2114 .00462 4.61 -32.62 -11.18 185.6
Total 5568 -.1504 .004958 19.05 -46.84 -11.33 278.4
Is it right to perform ttest on ln((NAN/1000000)+50) ? changing the
constant i add dosent seem to make a difference.
stats on ln((NAN/100000)+50) is as below
group N mean p50 max min
skewness kurtosis
group1 2537 4.604 4.605 4.78 3.973 -17.21 527.4
group2 3031 4.603 4.605 4.65 4.21 12.74 242.9
Total 5568 4.604 4.605 4.78 3.973 -15.94 469
There is still a large negative skewness coefficient. To me this
looks like not a situation for a ttest and I should be looking at
some non parametric test. Is that right?
The results from the ttest using the unpaired and unequal option,
using the untransformed and using ln((NAN/100000)+50) are as below
transformation t p 95% CI
None 3.25 .0011
53205.45-214470.8
log(50+var) 2.75 .0060
.000367 - .002185 ( I understand this has to be back transformed)
a ranksum test on the logtransformed NAN shows a z of 3.3999 with a p
of .0007.on the untransformed NAN it is 3.396 with p of .0007
so overall, there dosent seem to be any change in the conclusions,
what ever test I use. But is the ttest procedure appropriate?
You help is much appreciated.
*
* 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/