IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v76y2022i1p53-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Your Permutation Test is Doomed to Fail

Author

Listed:
  • William F. Christensen
  • Brinley N. Zabriskie

Abstract

A two-tailed test comparing the means of two independent populations is perhaps the most commonly used hypothesis test in quantitative research, featured centrally in medical research, A/B testing, and throughout the sciences. When data are skewed, the standard two-tailed t test is not appropriate and the permutation test comparing the two means (or medians) has been a widely recommended alternative, with statistical authors and statistical software packages touting the permutation test’s utility, particularly for small samples. In this presentation, we illustrate that when the two samples are skewed and the sample sizes are unequal, the two-tailed permutation test (as traditionally implemented) can in some cases have power equal to zero, even when the k highest values in the combined data are all found in the group with k observations. Further, in many cases the standard permutation test exhibits decreasing power as the total sample size increases! We illustrate the causes of these perverse properties via both simulation and real-world examples, and we recommend approaches for ameliorating or avoiding these potential problems.

Suggested Citation

  • William F. Christensen & Brinley N. Zabriskie, 2022. "When Your Permutation Test is Doomed to Fail," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(1), pages 53-63, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:1:p:53-63
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2021.1902856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2021.1902856
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2021.1902856?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:76:y:2022:i:1:p:53-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.