similar to: V-value in the wilcox.test resp. wilcox.exact

Full_Name: Patrick Hodgson Version: 2.0 OS: solaris 2.9 Submission from: (NULL) (65.94.128.161) The value reported for the parameter W in the function wilcox.exact appears to be incorrect. I have checked the reference in the help file for this function (Myles & Hollander 1973, as well as 2nd ed. 1999 by same authors) and it is clear that W is the sum of the ranks of the data set with the

hi, i am looking for a way to correct for ties in the wilcoxon signed rank test -> e.g. wilcox.test(x,mu=.5) one way i have heard of is to look up the p value in a table that has been produced by Buck (1975). obviously i need to know the T-value to do that -> how do i get the T-value from the wilcox.test() function. is there any other (already implemented) way to correct for ties in

Good day all, My first posting to this list. It looked like the best place to post this question. When running the wilcox.test(), I noticed that the output values change if you change the ordering of the levels (example below which includes a t.test for comparison). I think this has something to do with the change in ranking order, but this doesn't make much sense as I would expect the

Does anyone know why wilcox.exact gives W-statistic 6 instead of 12 as indicated below. 12 is the rank sum of group 0 of x, which is the linear statistic computed by wilcox_test. y<-c(1,2,3,4,5) x<-c(1,1,0,0,0) (a) wilcox.exact wilcox.exact(y~x) Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test data: y by x W = 6, p-value = 0.2 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 (b) wilcox_test

>>>>> Karolis Koncevi?ius >>>>> on Mon, 9 Dec 2019 23:43:36 +0200 writes: > So I tried adding Infinity support for all cases. > And it is (as could be expected) more complicated than I thought. "Of course !" Thank you, Karolis, in any case! > It is easy to add Inf support for the test. The problems start with conf.int=TRUE.

This is my first post to the mailing list and I guess it's a pretty stupid question but I can't figure it out. I hope this is the right forum for these kind of questions. Before I started using R I was using STATA to run a Wilcoxon signed-rank test on two variables. See data below:

Hi, In the exactRankTest package, I've become aware that you can get anomalous p-values (i.e., above 1) from the wilcox.exact method, as in: > wilcox.exact(c(-0.6,0.8,-0.5)) Exact Wilcoxon signed rank test data: c(-0.6, 0.8, -0.5) V = 3, p-value = 1.25 alternative hypothesis: true mu is not equal to 0 This is disturbing. Has anyone encountered this before, and if so

Hello, Writing to share some things I've found about wilcox.test() that seem a a bit inconsistent. 1. Inf values are not removed if paired=TRUE # returns different results (Inf is removed): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7)) wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,Inf)) # returns the same result (Inf is left as value with highest rank): wilcox.test(c(1,2,3,4), c(0,9,8,7), paired=TRUE)

Thank you for a fast response. Nice to see this mailing list being so alive. Regarding Inf issue: I agree with your assessment that Inf should not be removed. The code gave me an impression that Inf values were intentionally removed (since is.finite() was used everywhere, except for paired case). I will try to adjust my patch according to your feedback. One more thing: it seems like you

Hi all, I have being using wilcox.test to test for differences between 2 independent samples. I had understood the difference in location to be conventionally the difference in the sample medians however this is not the case when implemented in R. I have tied ranks and therefore non-exact p-value and confidence intervals are calculated due to the normal approximation. But what exactly is this

I have a question concerning the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and specifically, which R subroutine I should use for my particular dataset. There are three different commands in R (that I'm aware of) that calculate the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; wilcox.test, wilcox.exact, and wilcoxsign_test. When I run the three commands on the same dataset, I get different p-values. I'm hoping that

Dear R people, I notice that the confidence intervals of a very small sample (e.g. n=6) derived from the one-sample wilcox.test are just the maximum and minimum values of the sample. This only occurs when the required confidence level is higher than 0.93. Example: > sample <- c(1.22, 0.89, 1.14, 0.98, 1.37, 1.06) > summary(sample) Min. 1st Qu. Median Mean 3rd Qu. Max.

Hi, Could anyone provide the formula of the statistics which the wilcox.test used for the two-sample rank-sum test? I got some statistics of 0 values, but it is impossible to have 0 "rank-sum". Does the function use the Mann-Whitney U test statistics? Thanks. Ting-Yuan Liu

Hi guys,   I have two data sets of prices: endprice0, endprice1   I use the Wilcox test:   wilcox.test(endprice0, endprice1, paired = TRUE, alternative = "two.sided",  conf.int = T, conf.level = 0.9)   The result is with V = 1819, p-value = 0.8812.   Then I calculated the z-value of the test: z-value = -2.661263. The corresponding p-value is: p-value = 0.003892, which is different from

how do I check the rank of a matrix ? say A= 1 0 0 0 1 0 then rank(A)=2 what is this function? thanks I did try help.search("rank"), but all the returned help information seem irrelevant to what I want. I would like to know how people search for help information like this. rank(base) Sample Ranks SignRank(stats) Distribution of the

Dear List, after updating the exactRanksumTests package I receive a warning that the package is not developed any further and that one should consider the coin package. I don't find the signed rank test in the coin package, only the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney U-Test. I only found a signed rank test in the stats package (wilcox.test) which is able to calculate the exact pvalues but unfortunately

Given this example #start code a<-c(0,70,50,100,70,650,1300,6900,1780,4930,1120,700,190,940, 760,100,300,36270,5610,249680,1760,4040,164890,17230,75140,1870,22380,5890,2430) b<-c(0,0,10,30,50,440,1000,140,70,90,60,60,20,90,180,30,90, 3220,490,20790,290,740,5350,940,3910,0,640,850,260) wilcox.test(a, b, paired=FALSE) #sum of rank for first sample sum.rank.a <-

Hi, I recently ran into the problem that I needed a Siegel-Tukey test for equal variability based on ranks. Maybe there is a package that has it implemented, but I could not find it. So I programmed an R function to do it. The Siegel-Tukey test requires to recode the ranks so that they express variability rather than ascending order. This is essentially what the code further below does. After the

Full_Name: David Wooff Version: 1.7.0 OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu Submission from: (NULL) (129.234.4.10) wilcox.test exits with error message when confidence interval required, under some situations. I suspect this occurs when the data contain a zero and for some data lengths only: print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0),conf.int=T)) fails print(wilcox.test(c(2,1,4,3,6,-5,0,1),conf.int=T)) works

I am running a pairwise wilcoxon signed rank test, and I am not sure how to interpret the result. I would like to see if there is a difference between the values in conditions a and b. It doesn't seem possible to have a V = 0, but a significant p value. Am I doing something wrong? The command I used is this: wilcox.test(x=a$x,y=b$x,paired=TRUE) The output looks like this: Wilcoxon