One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test - overview

This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons by clicking on the dropdown button in the right-hand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table

One sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test
Logistic regression
Regression (OLS)
Goodness of fit test
$z$ test for the difference between two proportions
One way ANOVA
Independent variableIndependent variablesIndependent variablesIndependent variableIndependent/grouping variableIndependent/grouping variable
NoneOne or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variablesOne or more quantitative of interval or ratio level and/or one or more categorical with independent groups, transformed into code variablesNoneOne categorical with 2 independent groupsOne categorical with $I$ independent groups ($I \geqslant 2$)
Dependent variableDependent variableDependent variableDependent variableDependent variableDependent variable
One of ordinal levelOne categorical with 2 independent groupsOne quantitative of interval or ratio levelOne categorical with $J$ independent groups ($J \geqslant 2$)One categorical with 2 independent groupsOne quantitative of interval or ratio level
Null hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesisNull hypothesis
H0: $m = m_0$

Here $m$ is the population median, and $m_0$ is the population median according to the null hypothesis.
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
• H0: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
• H0: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
• H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
• H0: $\beta_k = 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
• H0: $e^{\beta_k} = 1$
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.
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
• H0: $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = \ldots = \beta_K = 0$
or equivalenty
• H0: 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 $\beta_k$:
• H0: $\beta_k = 0$
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.
• H0: the population proportions in each of the $J$ conditions are $\pi_1$, $\pi_2$, $\ldots$, $\pi_J$
or equivalently
• H0: the probability of drawing an observation from condition 1 is $\pi_1$, the probability of drawing an observation from condition 2 is $\pi_2$, $\ldots$, the probability of drawing an observation from condition $J$ is $\pi_J$
H0: $\pi_1 = \pi_2$

Here $\pi_1$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 1, and $\pi_2$ is the population proportion of 'successes' for group 2.
ANOVA $F$ test:
• H0: $\mu_1 = \mu_2 = \ldots = \mu_I$
$\mu_1$ is the population mean for group 1; $\mu_2$ is the population mean for group 2; $\mu_I$ is the population mean for group $I$
$t$ Test for contrast:
• H0: $\Psi = 0$
$\Psi$ is the population contrast, defined as $\Psi = \sum a_i\mu_i$. Here $\mu_i$ is the population mean for group $i$ and $a_i$ is the coefficient for $\mu_i$. The coefficients $a_i$ sum to 0.
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
• H0: $\mu_g = \mu_h$
$\mu_g$ is the population mean for group $g$; $\mu_h$ is the population mean for group $h$
Alternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesisAlternative hypothesis
H1 two sided: $m \neq m_0$
H1 right sided: $m > m_0$
H1 left sided: $m < m_0$
Model chi-squared test for the complete regression model:
• H1: not all population regression coefficients are 0
Wald test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
• H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
• H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
If defined as Wald $= \dfrac{b_k}{SE_{b_k}}$ (see 'Test statistic'), also one sided alternatives can be tested:
• H1 right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
• H1 left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
Likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual regression coefficient $\beta_k$:
• H1: $\beta_k \neq 0$
or in terms of odds ratio:
• H1: $e^{\beta_k} \neq 1$
$F$ test for the complete regression model:
• H1: not all population regression coefficients are 0
or equivalenty
• H1: 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 $\beta_k$:
• H1 two sided: $\beta_k \neq 0$
• H1 right sided: $\beta_k > 0$
• H1 left sided: $\beta_k < 0$
• H1: the population proportions are not all as specified under the null hypothesis
or equivalently
• H1: the probabilities of drawing an observation from each of the conditions are not all as specified under the null hypothesis
H1 two sided: $\pi_1 \neq \pi_2$
H1 right sided: $\pi_1 > \pi_2$
H1 left sided: $\pi_1 < \pi_2$
ANOVA $F$ test:
• H1: not all population means are equal
$t$ Test for contrast:
• H1 two sided: $\Psi \neq 0$
• H1 right sided: $\Psi > 0$
• H1 left sided: $\Psi < 0$
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
• H1 - usually two sided: $\mu_g \neq \mu_h$
AssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptions
• 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
• 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
• Variables are measured without error
Also pay attention to:
• Multicollinearity
• Outliers
• Sample size is large enough for $X^2$ to be approximately chi-squared distributed. Rule of thumb: all $J$ expected cell counts are 5 or more
• Sample is a simple random sample from the population. That is, observations are independent of one another
• Sample size is large enough for $z$ to be approximately normally distributed. Rule of thumb:
• Significance test: number of successes and number of failures are each 5 or more in both sample groups
• Regular (large sample) 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: number of successes and number of failures are each 10 or more in both sample groups
• Plus four 90%, 95%, or 99% confidence interval: sample sizes of both groups are 5 or more
• Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
• Within each population, the scores on the dependent variable are normally distributed
• The standard deviation of the scores on the dependent variable is the same in each of the populations: $\sigma_1 = \sigma_2 = \ldots = \sigma_I$
• Group 1 sample is a simple random sample (SRS) from population 1, group 2 sample is an independent SRS from population 2, $\ldots$, group $I$ sample is an independent SRS from population $I$. That is, within and between groups, observations are independent of one another
Test statisticTest statisticTest statisticTest statisticTest statisticTest 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:
1. 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.
2. For each subject, compute the absolute value of the difference score $|\mbox{score} - m_0|$.
3. Exclude subjects with a difference score of zero. This leaves us with a remaining number of difference scores equal to $N_r$.
4. 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 chi-squared 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 chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
• $X^2 = D_{K-1} - D_K$
$D_{K-1}$ 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 $\beta_1.$
$X^2 = \sum{\frac{(\mbox{observed cell count} - \mbox{expected cell count})^2}{\mbox{expected cell count}}}$
Here the expected cell count for one cell = $N \times \pi_j$, the observed cell count is the observed sample count in that same cell, and the sum is over all $J$ cells.
$z = \dfrac{p_1 - p_2}{\sqrt{p(1 - p)\Bigg(\dfrac{1}{n_1} + \dfrac{1}{n_2}\Bigg)}}$
Here $p_1$ is the sample proportion of successes in group 1: $\dfrac{X_1}{n_1}$, $p_2$ is the sample proportion of successes in group 2: $\dfrac{X_2}{n_2}$, $p$ is the total proportion of successes in the sample: $\dfrac{X_1 + X_2}{n_1 + n_2}$, $n_1$ is the sample size of group 1, and $n_2$ is the sample size of group 2.
Note: we could just as well compute $p_2 - p_1$ in the numerator, but then the left sided alternative becomes $\pi_2 < \pi_1$, and the right sided alternative becomes $\pi_2 > \pi_1.$
ANOVA $F$ test:
• \begin{aligned}[t] F &= \dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's group mean} - \mbox{overall mean})^2 / (I - 1)}{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score} - \mbox{its group mean})^2 / (N - I)}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares between} / \mbox{degrees of freedom between}}{\mbox{sum of squares error} / \mbox{degrees of freedom error}}\\ &= \dfrac{\mbox{mean square between}}{\mbox{mean square error}} \end{aligned}
where $N$ is the total sample size, and $I$ is the number of groups.
Note: mean square between is also known as mean square model, and mean square error is also known as mean square residual or mean square within.
$t$ Test for contrast:
• $t = \dfrac{c}{s_p\sqrt{\sum \dfrac{a^2_i}{n_i}}}$
Here $c$ is the sample estimate of the population contrast $\Psi$: $c = \sum a_i\bar{y}_i$, with $\bar{y}_i$ the sample mean in group $i$. $s_p$ is the pooled standard deviation based on all the $I$ groups in the ANOVA, $a_i$ is the contrast coefficient for group $i$, and $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$.
Note that if the contrast compares only two group means with each other, this $t$ statistic is very similar to the two sample $t$ statistic (assuming equal population standard deviations). In that case the only difference is that we now base the pooled standard deviation on all the $I$ groups, which affects the $t$ value if $I \geqslant 3$. It also affects the corresponding degrees of freedom.
$t$ Test multiple comparisons:
• $t = \dfrac{\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h}{s_p\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n_g} + \dfrac{1}{n_h}}}$
$\bar{y}_g$ is the sample mean in group $g$, $\bar{y}_h$ is the sample mean in group $h$, $s_p$ is the pooled standard deviation based on all the $I$ groups in the ANOVA, $n_g$ is the sample size of group $g$, and $n_h$ is the sample size of group $h$.
Note that this $t$ statistic is very similar to the two sample $t$ statistic (assuming equal population standard deviations). The only difference is that we now base the pooled standard deviation on all the $I$ groups, which affects the $t$ value if $I \geqslant 3$. It also affects the corresponding degrees of freedom.
n.a.n.a.Sample standard deviation of the residuals $s$n.a.n.a.Pooled standard deviation
--\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}--\begin{aligned} s_p &= \sqrt{\dfrac{(n_1 - 1) \times s^2_1 + (n_2 - 1) \times s^2_2 + \ldots + (n_I - 1) \times s^2_I}{N - I}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\sum\nolimits_{subjects} (\mbox{subject's score} - \mbox{its group mean})^2}{N - I}}\\ &= \sqrt{\dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares error}}{\mbox{degrees of freedom error}}}\\ &= \sqrt{\mbox{mean square error}} \end{aligned}

Here $s^2_i$ is the variance in group $i.$
Sampling distribution of $W_1$ and of $W_2$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $X^2$ and of the Wald statistic if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $F$ and of $t$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $X^2$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $z$ if H0 were trueSampling distribution of $F$ and of $t$ if H0 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 chi-squared test for the complete model:
• chi-squared 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 chi-squared 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 chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
• chi-squared 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
Approximately the chi-squared distribution with $J - 1$ degrees of freedomApproximately the standard normal distributionSampling distribution of $F$:
• $F$ distribution with $I - 1$ (df between, numerator) and $N - I$ (df error, denominator) degrees of freedom
Sampling distribution of $t$:
• $t$ distribution with $N - I$ degrees of freedom
Significant?Significant?Significant?Significant?Significant?Significant?
For large samples, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used:
Two sided:
Right sided:
Left sided:
For the model chi-squared test for the complete regression model and likelihood ratio chi-squared test for individual $\beta_k$:
• Check if $X^2$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $X^{2*}$ or
• 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 chi-squared 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:
$t$ Test right sided:
$t$ Test left sided:
• Check if $X^2$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $X^{2*}$ or
• Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Two sided:
Right sided:
Left sided:
$F$ 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 $\alpha$ (e.g. .01 < $p$ < .025 when $F$ = 3.91, df between = 4, and df error = 20)

$t$ Test for contrast two sided:
$t$ Test for contrast right sided:
$t$ Test for contrast left sided:

$t$ Test multiple comparisons two sided:
• Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
• Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
$t$ Test multiple comparisons right sided
• Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
• Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
$t$ Test multiple comparisons left sided
• Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^{**}$. Adapt $t^{**}$ according to a multiple comparison procedure (e.g., Bonferroni) or
• Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$. Adapt the $p$ value or $\alpha$ according to a multiple comparison procedure
n.a.Wald-type approximate $C\%$ confidence interval for $\beta_k$$C\% confidence interval for \beta_k and for \mu_y, C\% prediction interval for y_{new}n.a.Approximate C\% confidence interval for \pi_1 - \pi_2$$C\%$ confidence interval for $\Psi$, for $\mu_g - \mu_h$, and for $\mu_i$
-$b_k \pm z^* \times SE_{b_k}$
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).
-Regular (large sample):
• $(p_1 - p_2) \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p_1(1 - p_1)}{n_1} + \dfrac{p_2(1 - p_2)}{n_2}}$
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)
With plus four method:
• $(p_{1.plus} - p_{2.plus}) \pm z^* \times \sqrt{\dfrac{p_{1.plus}(1 - p_{1.plus})}{n_1 + 2} + \dfrac{p_{2.plus}(1 - p_{2.plus})}{n_2 + 2}}$
where $p_{1.plus} = \dfrac{X_1 + 1}{n_1 + 2}$, $p_{2.plus} = \dfrac{X_2 + 1}{n_2 + 2}$, and 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 $\Psi$ (contrast):
• $c \pm t^* \times s_p\sqrt{\sum \dfrac{a^2_i}{n_i}}$
where the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20). Note that $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
Confidence interval for $\mu_g - \mu_h$ (multiple comparisons):
• $(\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h) \pm t^{**} \times s_p\sqrt{\dfrac{1}{n_g} + \dfrac{1}{n_h}}$
where $t^{**}$ depends upon $C$, degrees of freedom ($N - I$), and the multiple comparison procedure. If you do not want to apply a multiple comparison procedure, $t^{**} = t^* =$ the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$. Note that $n_g$ is the sample size of group $g$, $n_h$ is the sample size of group $h$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
Confidence interval for single population mean $\mu_i$:
• $\bar{y}_i \pm t^* \times \dfrac{s_p}{\sqrt{n_i}}$
where $\bar{y}_i$ is the sample mean in group $i$, $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and the critical value $t^*$ is the value under the $t_{N - I}$ distribution with the area $C / 100$ between $-t^*$ and $t^*$ (e.g. $t^*$ = 2.086 for a 95% confidence interval when df = 20). Note that $n_i$ is the sample size of group $i$, and $N$ is the total sample size, based on all the $I$ groups.
n.a.Goodness of fit measure $R^2_L$Effect sizen.a.n.a.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
• Semi-partial 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 $x_k$
--
• Proportion variance explained $\eta^2$ and $R^2$:
Proportion variance of the dependent variable $y$ explained by the independent variable: \begin{align} \eta^2 = R^2 &= \dfrac{\mbox{sum of squares between}}{\mbox{sum of squares total}} \end{align} Only in one way ANOVA $\eta^2 = R^2.$ $\eta^2$ (and $R^2$) is the proportion variance explained in the sample. It is a positively biased estimate of the proportion variance explained in the population.

• Proportion variance explained $\omega^2$:
Corrects for the positive bias in $\eta^2$ and is equal to: $$\omega^2 = \frac{\mbox{sum of squares between} - \mbox{df between} \times \mbox{mean square error}}{\mbox{sum of squares total} + \mbox{mean square error}}$$ $\omega^2$ is a better estimate of the explained variance in the population than $\eta^2.$

• Cohen's $d$:
Standardized difference between the mean in group $g$ and in group $h$: $$d_{g,h} = \frac{\bar{y}_g - \bar{y}_h}{s_p}$$ Cohen's $d$ indicates how many standard deviations $s_p$ two sample means are removed from each other.
n.a.n.a.Visual representationn.a.n.a.n.a.
--Regression equations with: ---
n.a.n.a.ANOVA tablen.a.n.a.ANOVA table
-- --
Click the link for a step by step explanation of how to compute the sum of squares.
n.a.n.a.n.a.n.a.Equivalent toEquivalent to
----When testing two sided: chi-squared test for the relationship between two categorical variables, where both categorical variables have 2 levels.OLS regression with one categorical independent variable transformed into $I - 1$ code variables:
• $F$ test ANOVA is equivalent to $F$ test regression model
• $t$ test for contrast $i$ is equivalent to $t$ test for regression coefficient $\beta_i$ (specific contrast tested depends on how the code variables are defined)
Example contextExample contextExample contextExample contextExample contextExample context
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?Is the proportion of people with a low, moderate, and high social economic status in the population different from $\pi_{low} = 0.2,$ $\pi_{moderate} = 0.6,$ and $\pi_{high} = 0.2$?Is the proportion of smokers different between men and women? Use the normal approximation for the sampling distribution of the test statistic.Is the average mental health score different between people from a low, moderate, and high economic class?
SPSSSPSSSPSSSPSSSPSSSPSS
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 signed-rank test
• On the Settings tab, choose Customize tests and check the box for 'Compare median to hypothesized (Wilcoxon signed-rank 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)
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > Chi-square...
• Put your categorical variable in the box below Test Variable List
• Fill in the population proportions / probabilities according to $H_0$ in the box below Expected Values. If $H_0$ states that they are all equal, just pick 'All categories equal' (default)
SPSS does not have a specific option for the $z$ test for the difference between two proportions. However, you can do the chi-squared test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this chi-squared test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the $z$ test. Go to:

Analyze > Descriptive Statistics > Crosstabs...
• Put your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Row(s), and your dependent variable in the box below Column(s)
• Click the Statistics... button, and click on the square in front of Chi-square
• Continue and click OK
Analyze > Compare Means > One-Way ANOVA...
• Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent List and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Factor
or
Analyze > General Linear Model > Univariate...
• Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Fixed Factor(s)
JamoviJamoviJamoviJamoviJamoviJamovi
T-Tests > One Sample T-Test
• 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'
Frequencies > N Outcomes - $\chi^2$ Goodness of fit
• Put your categorical variable in the box below Variable
• Click on Expected Proportions and fill in the population proportions / probabilities according to $H_0$ in the boxes below Ratio. If $H_0$ states that they are all equal, you can leave the ratios equal to the default values (1)
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the $z$ test for the difference between two proportions. However, you can do the chi-squared test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this chi-squared test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the $z$ test. Go to:

Frequencies > Independent Samples - $\chi^2$ test of association
• Put your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Rows, and your dependent variable in the box below Columns
ANOVA > ANOVA
• Put your dependent (quantitative) variable in the box below Dependent Variable and your independent (grouping) variable in the box below Fixed Factors
Practice questionsPractice questionsPractice questionsPractice questionsPractice questionsPractice questions