F-test vs.T-test-on-differences
1
0
Entering edit mode
Claus Mayer ▴ 340
@claus-mayer-1179
Last seen 9.6 years ago
European Union
Hello Benjamin! I think there is some misunderstanding here. The t-test is a test for the differences between the means of two distributions. If you center your data like you propose the difference is 0 so the t-statistic will always behave very much like under the nullhypothesis (not exactly as the distributions might differ in variances and other properties, but the t-test is NOT meant to detect those). The F-test on the other hand specifically tests for difference in variances, so it is clearly the more appropriate test in your case (and if you are worrried about non-normality you might determine p-values by a resampling method like bootstrap). I think what might have confused you is that there are TWO F-tests: a) the one for testing differences between variances (lets call that F1) b) the F-test that is being used in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (lets call it F2) Despite its name ANOVA is a method to compare MEANS not VARIANCES. With two groups you have the trivial case of a one-way ANOVA and if you calculate the F-statistic F2 for that it is just a transformation of the usual t-statistic, i.e. the test will yield the same p-values. So F1 and F2 are very different statistics for very different things, but both have a F-distribution under normality assumptions so their names are the same (there are plenty of chi-square tests out there as well!) Hope this helps Claus Benjamin Otto wrote: > Dear community, > > > > That might be a stupid statistical question but I'm really not sure about > the answer: > > > > Suppose I have two groups of numeric values x11-x19 and y11-y19. The > conventional way to check for difference in variance here is performing an > F-test with say > > > >> g1 <- c(x11:x19) > >> g2 <- c(y11:y19) > >> var.test( g1, g2) > > > > and looking at the resuting p.value. A second possibility is calculating > some adjusted values first like > > > >> g1.adj <- abs(g1 - mean(g1)) > >> g2.adj <- abs(g2 - mean(g2)) > > > > And afterwards performing a T-test on those values. Should that give me the > same result? I tried to solve it mathematically and the statistic doesn't > seem to be the same. But then, why is the F-test calculated as it is AND is > it really better for a comparison than the second version? > > > > Regards, > > > > benjamin > > > > -- > Benjamin Otto > Universitaetsklinikum Eppendorf Hamburg > Institut fuer Klinische Chemie > Martinistrasse 52 > 20246 Hamburg > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > _______________________________________________ > Bioconductor mailing list > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > Search the archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > > > > -- ********************************************************************** ************* Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349
• 1.3k views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Naomi Altman ★ 6.0k
@naomi-altman-380
Last seen 3.0 years ago
United States
Actually, since Benjamin took abs(x-xbar) the means are not the same. abs(x-sbar) should be centered roughly on SD(x). --Naomi At 04:15 AM 11/1/2006, Claus Mayer wrote: >Hello Benjamin! > >I think there is some misunderstanding here. The t-test is a test for >the differences between the means of two distributions. If you center >your data like you propose the difference is 0 so the t-statistic will >always behave very much like under the nullhypothesis (not exactly as >the distributions might differ in variances and other properties, but >the t-test is NOT meant to detect those). >The F-test on the other hand specifically tests for difference in >variances, so it is clearly the more appropriate test in your case (and >if you are worrried about non-normality you might determine p-values by >a resampling method like bootstrap). >I think what might have confused you is that there are TWO F-tests: >a) the one for testing differences between variances (lets call that F1) >b) the F-test that is being used in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (lets >call it F2) >Despite its name ANOVA is a method to compare MEANS not VARIANCES. With >two groups you have the trivial case of a one-way ANOVA and if you >calculate the F-statistic F2 for that it is just a transformation of the >usual t-statistic, i.e. the test will yield the same p-values. >So F1 and F2 are very different statistics for very different things, >but both have a F-distribution under normality assumptions so their >names are the same (there are plenty of chi-square tests out there as well!) > >Hope this helps > >Claus > >Benjamin Otto wrote: > > Dear community, > > > > > > > > That might be a stupid statistical question but I'm really not sure about > > the answer: > > > > > > > > Suppose I have two groups of numeric values x11-x19 and y11-y19. The > > conventional way to check for difference in variance here is performing an > > F-test with say > > > > > > > >> g1 <- c(x11:x19) > > > >> g2 <- c(y11:y19) > > > >> var.test( g1, g2) > > > > > > > > and looking at the resuting p.value. A second possibility is calculating > > some adjusted values first like > > > > > > > >> g1.adj <- abs(g1 - mean(g1)) > > > >> g2.adj <- abs(g2 - mean(g2)) > > > > > > > > And afterwards performing a T-test on those values. Should that give me the > > same result? I tried to solve it mathematically and the statistic doesn't > > seem to be the same. But then, why is the F-test calculated as it is AND is > > it really better for a comparison than the second version? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > benjamin > > > > > > > > -- > > Benjamin Otto > > Universitaetsklinikum Eppendorf Hamburg > > Institut fuer Klinische Chemie > > Martinistrasse 52 > > 20246 Hamburg > > > > > > > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bioconductor mailing list > > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor > > Search the archives: > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >********************************************************************* ************** > Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk > Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk > Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 > Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349 > >_______________________________________________ >Bioconductor mailing list >Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >Search the archives: >http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) Associate Professor Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) University Park, PA 16802-2111
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode
Which only shows that one should read these things properly before one replies. Very sorry about that! I haven't come across that approach as a test for differences in variances yet, but I can see the idea now. As the F-test has optimality properties for normal distributions I still would prefer it (possibly performed as a resampling test to make it more robust against deviations of non-normality). Sorry again for misreading and misinterpreting the question Claus Naomi Altman wrote: > Actually, since Benjamin took abs(x-xbar) the means are not the same. > abs(x-sbar) should be centered roughly on SD(x). > > --Naomi > > At 04:15 AM 11/1/2006, Claus Mayer wrote: >> Hello Benjamin! >> >> I think there is some misunderstanding here. The t-test is a test for >> the differences between the means of two distributions. If you center >> your data like you propose the difference is 0 so the t-statistic will >> always behave very much like under the nullhypothesis (not exactly as >> the distributions might differ in variances and other properties, but >> the t-test is NOT meant to detect those). >> The F-test on the other hand specifically tests for difference in >> variances, so it is clearly the more appropriate test in your case (and >> if you are worrried about non-normality you might determine p-values by >> a resampling method like bootstrap). >> I think what might have confused you is that there are TWO F-tests: >> a) the one for testing differences between variances (lets call that F1) >> b) the F-test that is being used in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (lets >> call it F2) >> Despite its name ANOVA is a method to compare MEANS not VARIANCES. With >> two groups you have the trivial case of a one-way ANOVA and if you >> calculate the F-statistic F2 for that it is just a transformation of the >> usual t-statistic, i.e. the test will yield the same p-values. >> So F1 and F2 are very different statistics for very different things, >> but both have a F-distribution under normality assumptions so their >> names are the same (there are plenty of chi-square tests out there as >> well!) >> >> Hope this helps >> >> Claus >> >> Benjamin Otto wrote: >> > Dear community, >> > >> > >> > >> > That might be a stupid statistical question but I'm really not sure >> about >> > the answer: >> > >> > >> > >> > Suppose I have two groups of numeric values x11-x19 and y11-y19. The >> > conventional way to check for difference in variance here is >> performing an >> > F-test with say >> > >> > >> > >> >> g1 <- c(x11:x19) >> > >> >> g2 <- c(y11:y19) >> > >> >> var.test( g1, g2) >> > >> > >> > >> > and looking at the resuting p.value. A second possibility is >> calculating >> > some adjusted values first like >> > >> > >> > >> >> g1.adj <- abs(g1 - mean(g1)) >> > >> >> g2.adj <- abs(g2 - mean(g2)) >> > >> > >> > >> > And afterwards performing a T-test on those values. Should that give >> me the >> > same result? I tried to solve it mathematically and the statistic >> doesn't >> > seem to be the same. But then, why is the F-test calculated as it is >> AND is >> > it really better for a comparison than the second version? >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > benjamin >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Benjamin Otto >> > Universitaetsklinikum Eppendorf Hamburg >> > Institut fuer Klinische Chemie >> > Martinistrasse 52 >> > 20246 Hamburg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bioconductor mailing list >> > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> > Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ******************************************************************* **************** >> >> Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk >> Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk >> Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 >> Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioconductor mailing list >> Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) > Associate Professor > Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) > Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) > University Park, PA 16802-2111 > > > > > > -- ********************************************************************** ************* Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349
ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode
Hi Naomi, Claus, The distribution argument you both mentioned seems convincing. Maybe I really should stick to the normal F-test for my comparisons. Regards, Benjamin -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Claus Mayer [mailto:claus at bioss.ac.uk] Gesendet: 01 November 2006 19:09 An: Naomi Altman; 'BioClist'; Benjamin Otto Betreff: Re: [BioC] F-test vs.T-test-on-differences Which only shows that one should read these things properly before one replies. Very sorry about that! I haven't come across that approach as a test for differences in variances yet, but I can see the idea now. As the F-test has optimality properties for normal distributions I still would prefer it (possibly performed as a resampling test to make it more robust against deviations of non-normality). Sorry again for misreading and misinterpreting the question Claus Naomi Altman wrote: > Actually, since Benjamin took abs(x-xbar) the means are not the same. > abs(x-sbar) should be centered roughly on SD(x). > > --Naomi > > At 04:15 AM 11/1/2006, Claus Mayer wrote: >> Hello Benjamin! >> >> I think there is some misunderstanding here. The t-test is a test for >> the differences between the means of two distributions. If you center >> your data like you propose the difference is 0 so the t-statistic will >> always behave very much like under the nullhypothesis (not exactly as >> the distributions might differ in variances and other properties, but >> the t-test is NOT meant to detect those). >> The F-test on the other hand specifically tests for difference in >> variances, so it is clearly the more appropriate test in your case (and >> if you are worrried about non-normality you might determine p-values by >> a resampling method like bootstrap). >> I think what might have confused you is that there are TWO F-tests: >> a) the one for testing differences between variances (lets call that F1) >> b) the F-test that is being used in Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) (lets >> call it F2) >> Despite its name ANOVA is a method to compare MEANS not VARIANCES. With >> two groups you have the trivial case of a one-way ANOVA and if you >> calculate the F-statistic F2 for that it is just a transformation of the >> usual t-statistic, i.e. the test will yield the same p-values. >> So F1 and F2 are very different statistics for very different things, >> but both have a F-distribution under normality assumptions so their >> names are the same (there are plenty of chi-square tests out there as >> well!) >> >> Hope this helps >> >> Claus >> >> Benjamin Otto wrote: >> > Dear community, >> > >> > >> > >> > That might be a stupid statistical question but I'm really not sure >> about >> > the answer: >> > >> > >> > >> > Suppose I have two groups of numeric values x11-x19 and y11-y19. The >> > conventional way to check for difference in variance here is >> performing an >> > F-test with say >> > >> > >> > >> >> g1 <- c(x11:x19) >> > >> >> g2 <- c(y11:y19) >> > >> >> var.test( g1, g2) >> > >> > >> > >> > and looking at the resuting p.value. A second possibility is >> calculating >> > some adjusted values first like >> > >> > >> > >> >> g1.adj <- abs(g1 - mean(g1)) >> > >> >> g2.adj <- abs(g2 - mean(g2)) >> > >> > >> > >> > And afterwards performing a T-test on those values. Should that give >> me the >> > same result? I tried to solve it mathematically and the statistic >> doesn't >> > seem to be the same. But then, why is the F-test calculated as it is >> AND is >> > it really better for a comparison than the second version? >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > >> > >> > benjamin >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Benjamin Otto >> > Universitaetsklinikum Eppendorf Hamburg >> > Institut fuer Klinische Chemie >> > Martinistrasse 52 >> > 20246 Hamburg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Bioconductor mailing list >> > Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> > Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> ********************************************************************** ****** ******* >> >> Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk >> Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk >> Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 >> Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bioconductor mailing list >> Bioconductor at stat.math.ethz.ch >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioconductor >> Search the archives: >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor > > Naomi S. Altman 814-865-3791 (voice) > Associate Professor > Dept. of Statistics 814-863-7114 (fax) > Penn State University 814-865-1348 (Statistics) > University Park, PA 16802-2111 > > > > > > -- ********************************************************************** ****** ******* Dr Claus-D. Mayer | http://www.bioss.ac.uk Biomathematics & Statistics Scotland | email: claus at bioss.ac.uk Rowett Research Institute | Telephone: +44 (0) 1224 716652 Aberdeen AB21 9SB, Scotland, UK. | Fax: +44 (0) 1224 715349 ********************************************************************** ****** *******
ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 482 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6