similar to: how to test difference in my case?

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

Hi, I do want to use the Mann-Whitney test which ranks my data and then uses those ranks rather than the actual data. Here is the R code i am using: group1<- c(1.34,1.47,1.48,1.49,1.62,1.67,1.7,1.7,1.7,1.73,1.81,1.84,1.9,1.96,2, 2,2.19,2.29,2.29,2.41,2.41,2.46,2.5,2.6,2.8,2.8,3.07,3.3) > group2<-

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:

Dear Developers Team, I have two items: 1. wilcox.test with the paired=T option appears to delete zeros before ranking absolute differences. Would it be possible to add the feature of removing zeros after ranking, which is given in Lehmann's Nonparametrics as the preferred choice. See also Pratt (1959), JASA 54, 655-667. It is given in wilcoxsign_test of the coin package as an option

>>>>> Martin Maechler >>>>> on Thu, 12 Dec 2019 17:20:47 +0100 writes: >>>>> 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

So I tried adding Infinity support for all cases. And it is (as could be expected) more complicated than I thought. It is easy to add Inf support for the test. The problems start with conf.int=TRUE. Currently confidence intervals are computed via `uniroot()` and, in the case of infinities, we are computationally looking for roots over infinite interval which results in an error. I suspect this

>>>>> Karolis Koncevi?ius >>>>> on Sat, 7 Dec 2019 20:55:36 +0200 writes: > 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))

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

>>>>> 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.

Dear, I'm using R software to evaluate Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test and I' getting one Warning message as this: > C1dea_com [1] 1.000 0.345 0.200 0.208 0.508 0.480 0.545 0.563 0.451 0.683 0.380 0.913 1.000 0.506 > C1dea_sem [1] 1.000 0.665 0.284 0.394 0.509 0.721 0.545 0.898 0.744 0.683 0.382 0.913 1.000 0.970 > wilcox.test(C1dea_sem,C1dea_com, paired = TRUE, alternative =

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, 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

Hi, I am using wilcox.test function to test the difference between the means of two samples. The data points are paired, so I am using a paired test. There is one strange case. Sample A has a higher mean than a sample B. However, wilcox.test function says that sample B has a significantly higher "mean rank" than sample A. How is it possible? Here is the code (data file is attached):

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 <-

Hello, I am hoping someone could shed some light into the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for me? In looking through Stats references, the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test are statistically equivalent. When using the following dataset: m <- c(2.0863,2.1340,2.1008,1.9565,2.0413,NA,NA) f <- c(1.8938,1.9709,1.8613,2.0836,1.9485,2.0630,1.9143) and the wilcox.test command as

Dear R-ers, I am currently running some Wilcoxon tests in R-64. How do I find the degrees of freedom in the output I am receiving? > wilcox.test(good$TRUE, good$x4a, paired=FALSE) Wilcoxon rank sum test with continuity correction data: good$TRUE and good$x4a W = 2455, p-value < 2.2e-16 alternative hypothesis: true location shift is not equal to 0 Thank you, Stephen.

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

Dear list, I am facing a problem in my statistical analyses on R. My experiments are about plants, I record there growth after each cutting (every 3 weeks). 'BC' is for the plant, and '1' to '5' is the time of cutting and recording. The data and R script are : "" BourdCoup <- c(21, 7.2, 9.2, 0, 8.52, 14.7, 8.31, 6.2, 127.05, 115.2, 100.7, 24, 162.64, 136.8,

Hello everyone, I'm having some trouble interpreting the results of a Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney U) test. Hope you can help. This is the R script that I am running: a <- c(1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1) b <- c(1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2) wilcox.test(a, b, alternative="t", mu=0, exact=FALSE, paired=FALSE) #1st

Hi. I'm going to introduce the R-package for a group of medical doctors later this week and is a little confused about there use of a test named "willcoxon-pratt" for testing if the clinical and biochemical markers has decreased significantly after the use of some drugs for a group of patients. Looking into the R-functions I would in R recommand using a matched-pairs Wilcoxon