This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the righthand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
One or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variables
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
Dependent variable
One of ordinal level
One categorical with 2 independent groups
One quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
Null hypothesis
H_{0}: $m = m_0$
Here $m$ is the population median, and $m_0$ is the population median according to the null hypothesis.
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
H_{0}: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{0}: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{0}: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
in the regression equation
$
\ln \big(\frac{\pi_{y = 1}}{1  \pi_{y = 1}} \big) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times x_1 + \beta_2 \times x_2 + \ldots + \beta_K \times x_K
$. Here $ x_i$ represents independent variable $ i$, $\beta_i$ is the regression weight for independent variable $ x_i$, and $\pi_{y = 1}$ represents the true probability that the dependent variable $ y = 1$ (or equivalently, the proportion of $ y = 1$ in the population) given the scores on the independent variables.
H_{0}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 = 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{0}: $\beta_k = 0$
in the regression equation
$
\mu_y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \times x_1 + \beta_2 \times x_2 + \ldots + \beta_K \times x_K$. Here $ x_i$ represents independent variable $ i$, $\beta_i$ is the regression weight for independent variable $ x_i$, and $\mu_y$ represents the population mean of the dependent variable $ y$ given the scores on the independent variables.
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
Alternative hypothesis
H_{1} two sided: $m \neq m_0$
H_{1} right sided: $m > m_0$
H_{1} left sided: $m < m_0$
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
H_{1}: not all population regression coefficients are 0
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1}: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{1}: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$ (see 'Test statistic'), also one sided alternatives can be tested:
H_{1} right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H_{1} left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1}: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
H_{1}: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
H_{1}: not all population regression coefficients are 0 or equivalenty
H_{1}: the variance explained by all the independent variables together (the complete model) is larger than 0 in the population, i.e. $\rho^2 > 0$
$t$ test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
H_{1} two sided: $\beta_k \neq 0$
H_{1} right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
H_{1} left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
The population distribution of the scores is symmetric
Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the log odds $\ln (\frac{\pi_{y=1}}{1  \pi_{y=1}})$ is linear
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
In the population, the residuals are normally distributed at each combination of values of the independent variables
In the population, the standard deviation $\sigma$ of the residuals is the same for each combination of values of the independent variables (homoscedasticity)
In the population, the relationship between the independent variables and the mean of the dependent variable $\mu_y$ is linear. If this linearity assumption holds, the mean of the residuals is 0 for each combination of values of the independent variables
The residuals are independent of one another
Often ignored additional assumption:
Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
Multicollinearity
Outliers
Test statistic
Test statistic
Test statistic
Two different types of test statistics can be used, but both will result in the same test outcome. We will denote the first option the $W_1$ statistic (also known as the $T$ statistic), and the second option the $W_2$ statistic.
In order to compute each of the test statistics, follow the steps below:
For each subject, compute the sign of the difference score $\mbox{sign}_d = \mbox{sgn}(\mbox{score}  m_0)$. The sign is 1 if the difference is larger than zero, 1 if the diffence is smaller than zero, and 0 if the difference is equal to zero.
For each subject, compute the absolute value of the difference score $\mbox{score}  m_0$.
Exclude subjects with a difference score of zero. This leaves us with a remaining number of difference scores equal to $N_r$.
Assign ranks $R_d$ to the $N_r$ remaining absolute difference scores. The smallest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of 1, and the largest absolute difference score corresponds to a rank score of $N_r$. If there are ties, assign them the average of the ranks they occupy.
Then compute the test statistic:
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$
or
$W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$
That is, sum all ranks corresponding to a positive difference or sum all ranks corresponding to a negative difference. Theoratically, both definitions will result in the same test outcome. However:
Tables with critical values for $W_1$ are usually based on the smaller of $\sum\, R_d^{+}$ and $\sum\, R_d^{}$. So if you are using such a table, pick the smaller one.
If you are using the normal approximation to find the $p$ value, it makes things most straightforward if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{+}$ (if you use $W_1 = \sum\, R_d^{}$, the right and left sided alternative hypotheses 'flip').
$W_2 = \sum\, \mbox{sign}_d \times R_d$
That is, for each remaining difference score, multiply the rank of the absolute difference score by the sign of the difference score, and then sum all of the products.
Model chisquared test for the complete regression model:
$X^2 = D_{null}  D_K = \mbox{null deviance}  \mbox{model deviance} $
$D_{null}$, the null deviance, is conceptually similar to the total variance of the dependent variable in OLS regression analysis. $D_K$, the model deviance, is conceptually similar to the residual variance in OLS regression analysis.
Wald test for individual $\beta_k$:
The wald statistic can be defined in two ways:
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$
Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
SPSS uses the first definition.
Likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
$X^2 = D_{K1}  D_K$
$D_{K1}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is excluded from the model. $D_{K}$ is the model deviance, where independent variable $k$ is included in the model.
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
$
\begin{aligned}[t]
F &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2 / K}{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  K  1)}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model} / \mbox{degrees of freedom model}}{\mbox{sum of squares error} / \mbox{degrees of freedom error}}\\
&= \dfrac{\mbox{mean square model}}{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
where $\hat{y}_j$ is the predicted score on the dependent variable $y$ of subject $j$, $\bar{y}$ is the mean of $y$, $y_j$ is the score on $y$ of subject $j$, $N$ is the total sample size, and $K$ is the number of independent variables.
$t$ test for individual $\beta_k$:
$t = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$ with $s$ the sample standard deviation of the residuals, $x_j$ the score of subject $j$ on the independent variable $x$, and $\bar{x}$ the mean of $x$. For models with more than one independent variable, computing $SE_{b_k}$ is more complicated.
Note 1: mean square model is also known as mean square regression, and mean square error is also known as mean square residual.
Note 2: if there is only one independent variable in the model ($K = 1$), the $F$ test for the complete regression model is equivalent to the two sided $t$ test for $\beta_1.$
n.a.
n.a.
Sample standard deviation of the residuals $s$


$\begin{aligned}
s &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2}{N  K  1}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\ &= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}}
\end{aligned}
$
Sampling distribution of $W_1$ and of $W_2$ if H_{0} were true
Sampling distribution of $X^2$ and of the Wald statistic if H_{0} were true
Sampling distribution of $W_1$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_1$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $\mu_{W_1}$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_1}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\mu_{W_1} = \frac{N_r(N_r + 1)}{4}$$
$$\sigma_{W_1} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{24}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_1  \mu_{W_1}}{\sigma_{W_1}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
Sampling distribution of $W_2$:
If $N_r$ is large, $W_2$ is approximately normally distributed with mean $0$ and standard deviation $\sigma_{W_2}$ if the null hypothesis were true. Here
$$\sigma_{W_2} = \sqrt{\frac{N_r(N_r + 1)(2N_r + 1)}{6}}$$
Hence, if $N_r$ is large, the standardized test statistic
$$z = \frac{W_2}{\sigma_{W_2}}$$
follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.
If $N_r$ is small, the exact distribution of $W_1$ or $W_2$ should be used.
Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for the standard deviations $\sigma_{W_1}$ and $\sigma_{W_2}$ is more complicated.
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the model chisquared test for the complete model:
chisquared distribution with $K$ (number of independent variables) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of the Wald statistic:
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: approximately the chisquared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: approximately the standard normal distribution
Sampling distribution of $X^2$, as computed in the likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
chisquared distribution with 1 degree of freedom
Sampling distribution of $F$:
$F$ distribution with $K$ (df model, numerator) and $N  K  1$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
$t$ distribution with $N  K  1$ (df error) degrees of freedom
Significant?
Significant?
Significant?
For large samples, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
Two sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Right sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Left sided:
Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For the model chisquared test for the complete regression model and likelihood ratio chisquared test for individual $\beta_k$:
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
For the Wald test:
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k^2}{SE^2_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for the chisquared tests. Wald can be interpret as $X^2$
If defined as Wald $ = \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$: same procedure as for any $z$ test. Wald can be interpreted as $z$.
$F$ test:
Check if $F$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $F^*$ or
Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $F$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test two sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^*$ or
Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test right sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^*$ or
Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
$t$ Test left sided:
Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^*$ or
Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
n.a.
Waldtype approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$
$C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$ and for $\mu_y$, $C\%$ prediction interval for $y_{new}$

$b_k \pm z^* \times SE_{b_k}$
where the critical value $z^*$ is the value under the normal curve with the area $C / 100$ between $z^*$ and $z^*$ (e.g. $z^*$ = 1.96 for a 95% confidence interval).
Confidence interval for $\beta_k$:
$b_k \pm t^* \times SE_{b_k}$
If only one independent variable: $SE_{b_1} = \dfrac{\sqrt{\sum (y_j  \hat{y}_j)^2 / (N  2)}}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}} = \dfrac{s}{\sqrt{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Confidence interval for $\mu_y$, the population mean of $y$ given the values on the independent variables:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{\hat{y}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{\hat{y}} = s \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
Prediction interval for $y_{new}$, the score on $y$ of a future respondent:
$\hat{y} \pm t^* \times SE_{y_{new}}$
If only one independent variable:
$SE_{y_{new}} = s \sqrt{1 + \dfrac{1}{N} + \dfrac{(x^*  \bar{x})^2}{\sum (x_j  \bar{x})^2}}$
In all formulas, the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N  K  1}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20).
n.a.
Goodness of fit measure $R^2_L$
Effect size

$R^2_L = \dfrac{D_{null}  D_K}{D_{null}}$
There are several other goodness of fit measures in logistic regression. In logistic regression, there is no single agreed upon measure of goodness of fit.
Complete model:
Proportion variance explained $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the sample regression equation (the independent variables):
$$
\begin{align}
R^2 &= \dfrac{\sum (\hat{y}_j  \bar{y})^2}{\sum (y_j  \bar{y})^2}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares model}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= 1  \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}}\\
&= r(y, \hat{y})^2
\end{align}
$$
$R^2$ is the proportion variance explained in the sample by the sample regression equation. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2$. If there is only one independent variable, $R^2 = r^2$: the correlation between the independent variable $x$ and dependent variable $y$ squared.
Wherry's $R^2$ / shrunken $R^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $R^2$ and is equal to
$$R^2_W = 1  \frac{N  1}{N  K  1}(1  R^2)$$
$R^2_W$ is a less biased estimate than $R^2$ of the proportion variance explained in the population by the population regression equation, $\rho^2.$
Stein's $R^2$:
Estimates the proportion of variance in $y$ that we expect the current sample regression equation to explain in a different sample drawn from the same population. It is equal to
$$R^2_S = 1  \frac{(N  1)(N  2)(N + 1)}{(N  K  1)(N  K  2)(N)}(1  R^2)$$
Per independent variable:
Correlation squared $r^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is explained by the independent variable $x_k$, not corrected for the other independent variables in the model
Semipartial correlation squared $sr^2_k$: the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable $y$ that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$, beyond the part that is already explained by the other independent variables in the model
Partial correlation squared $pr^2_k$: the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable $y$ not explained by the other independent variables, that is uniquely explained by the independent variable $x_k$
Is the median mental health score of office workers different from $m_0 = 50$?
Can body mass index, stress level, and gender predict whether people get diagnosed with diabetes?
Can mental health be predicted from fysical health, economic class, and gender?
SPSS
SPSS
SPSS
Specify the measurement level of your variable on the Variable View tab, in the column named Measure. Then go to:
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > One Sample...
On the Objective tab, choose Customize Analysis
On the Fields tab, specify the variable for which you want to compute the Wilcoxon signedrank test
On the Settings tab, choose Customize tests and check the box for 'Compare median to hypothesized (Wilcoxon signedrank test)'. Fill in your $m_0$ in the box next to Hypothesized median
Click Run
Double click on the output table to see the full results
Analyze > Regression > Binary Logistic...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Covariate(s)
Analyze > Regression > Linear...
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent and your independent (predictor) variables in the box below Independent(s)
Jamovi
Jamovi
Jamovi
TTests > One Sample TTest
Put your variable in the box below Dependent Variables
Under Tests, select Wilcoxon rank
Under Hypothesis, fill in the value for $m_0$ in the box next to Test Value, and select your alternative hypothesis
Regression > 2 Outcomes  Binomial
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent variables of interval/ratio level in the box below Covariates
If you also have code (dummy) variables as independent variables, you can put these in the box below Covariates as well
Instead of transforming your categorical independent variable(s) into code variables, you can also put the untransformed categorical independent variables in the box below Factors. Jamovi will then make the code variables for you 'behind the scenes'
Regression > Linear Regression
Put your dependent variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent variables of interval/ratio level in the box below Covariates
If you also have code (dummy) variables as independent variables, you can put these in the box below Covariates as well
Instead of transforming your categorical independent variable(s) into code variables, you can also put the untransformed categorical independent variables in the box below Factors. Jamovi will then make the code variables for you 'behind the scenes'