Optimal sign tests for data from ranked set samples
This paper considers the one-sample sign test for data obtained from general ranked set sampling when the number of observations for each rank are not necessarily the same, and proposes a weighted sign test because observations with different ranks are not identically distributed. The optimal weight for each observation is distribution free and only depends on its associated rank. It is shown analytically that (1) the weighted version always improves the Pitman efficiency for all distributions; and (2) the optimal design is to select the median from each ranked set.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 72 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Öztürk, Ömer & Wolfe, Douglas A., 2000. "Alternative ranked set sampling protocols for the sign test," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 15-23, March.
- Hassen Muttlak, 2001. "Regression estimators in extreme and median ranked set samples," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(8), pages 1003-1017.
- Steven N. MacEachern & Ömer Öztürk & Douglas A. Wolfe & Gregory V. Stark, 2002. "A new ranked set sample estimator of variance," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(2), pages 177-188.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:stapro:v:72:y:2005:i:1:p:13-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.