Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T11:00:25.863Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Alternative methods for dealing by nonnormality and heteroscedasticity in paleontological data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Steven J. Hageman
Steven J. Hageman*
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, University of Illinois, Urbana 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although numerical methods are highly useful in paleontological studies, potential problems arise with application of parametric statistical methods to paleontological data. Most common statistical tests assume data are normally distributed and that multiple populations have equal variances (homoscedasticity). Paleontological data frequently do not satisfy these assumptions, thereby affecting results of tests and potentially misleading scientific interpretations. Nonparametric tests should be used when assumptions of parametric tests are violated. Normal scores tests, which utilize expected normal deviates (rankits) substituted for original data, are the most powerful nonparametric tests. Despite their potential utility, normal scores tests have received little attention, primarily because of difficulties encountered with rankit conversion.

Recent advances in microcomputer technology provide viable methods for rankit conversion, thus making normal scores tests accessible for routine application. Normal scores tests provide a practical method of dealing with nonnormality and heteroscedasticity common in paleontological data.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 66 , Issue 6 , November 1992 , pp. 857 - 867
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bradley, J. V. 1968. Distribution-free Statistical Tests, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 388 p.Google Scholar
Capon, J. 1961. Asymptotic efficiency of certain locally most powerful rank tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29:972–994.Google Scholar
Conover, W. J. 1980. Practical Nonparametric Statistics, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 493 p.Google Scholar
Effron, B., and Tibshirani, R. 1986. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1:54–77.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1990. Data acquisition for morphometric analysis in systematic biology, p. 9–19. In Rohlf, F. J. and Bookstein, F. L. (eds.), Proceedings of the Michigan Morphometrics Workshop, Special Publication 2. The University of Michigan Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., and Yates, F. 1938. Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research. Oliver and Boyd, London, 78 p.Google Scholar
Foster, D. W., and Kaesler, R. L. 1988. Shape analysis: ideas from the Ostracoda, p. 53–69. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. A. S. 1957. Most powerful rank-type tests. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 28:1040–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghent, A. W. 1971. Theory and application of several tests of sequential nonrandomness. The Biologist, 53:169–214.Google Scholar
Gilinsky, N. L., and Bambach, R. K. 1986. Bootstrapping a regression equation: some empirical results. Paleobiology, 12:251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harter, H. L. 1961. Expected values of normal order statistics. Biometrika, 48:151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ipsen, J., and Jerne, N. K. 1944. Graphical evaluation of the distribution of small experimental series. Acta Pathologica et Microbiologica Scandinavia, 21:343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, J. 1962. Nonparametric tests for scale. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 33:498–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, J. 1964. On the normal scores two-sample rank test. American Statistical Association Journal, 59:653–664.Google Scholar
Marascuilo, L. A., and McSweeney, M. 1977. Nonparametric and Distribution Free Methods for the Social Sciences. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Monterey, California, 556 p.Google Scholar
McSweeney, M., and Penfield, D. 1969. The normal scores test for the c-sample problem. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 22:177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plotnick, R. E. 1989. Application of bootstrap methods to reduced major axis line fitting. Systematic Zoology, 38:144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rock, N. M. S. 1988. Lecture Notes in Earth Sciences, 18 Numerical Geology. Springer-Verlag, New York, 427 p.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J., and Sokal, R. R. 1981. Statistical Tables, 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 219 p.Google Scholar
Snyder, E. M. 1991. Revised taxonomic procedures and paleoecological applications for some North American Mississippian Fenestellidae and Polyporidae (Bryozoa). Palaeontographica Americana 57, 351 p.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 859 p.Google Scholar
Terry, M. E. 1952. Some rank order tests which are most powerful against specific parametric alternatives. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23:346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Waerden, B. L. 1952. Order tests for the two-sample problem and their power. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series A, 55:453–458.Google Scholar
Van Eden, C. 1963. The relation between Pitman's asymptotic relative efficiency of two tests and the correlation coefficient between their test statistics. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 34:1442–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 718 p.Google Scholar
Zelen, M., and Severo, N. C. 1965. Probability functions, p. 925–926. In Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover Publications Inc., New York.Google Scholar