2019
DOI: 10.1002/int.22134
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The sign test and the signed‐rank test for interval‐valued data

Abstract: Two versions of the generalized sign test and the signed‐rank test for interval‐valued data (both for one‐sample and paired two‐sample problem) are proposed. These two versions correspond to different possible views on the interval outcomes of the experiment—either the epistemic or the ontic one. Each view yields its own approach to data analysis which results in different test construction and the way of carrying on the statistical inference.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 47 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, the methods using the fuzzy logic are applied for estimation and forecasting of the energy 23 . Introduced time series methods using fuzzy logic 24 – 26 . Introduced an analysis method using the fuzzy logic 27 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, the methods using the fuzzy logic are applied for estimation and forecasting of the energy 23 . Introduced time series methods using fuzzy logic 24 – 26 . Introduced an analysis method using the fuzzy logic 27 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In cases that Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference, pair-wise comparisons with Bonferroni correction (adj sig) and Mann-Whitney test were conducted as post-hoc analysis to determine which group(s) differ (Roni et al, 2020). Moreover, in order to evaluate if there are significant differences before and after teaching intervention, Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were applied for every group (Grzegorzewski & Śpiewak, 2019). Effect size (r = Z/N1/2) was calculated for which a significant difference was revealed (Tomczak & Tomczak 2014;Fritz et al, 2011).…”
Section: Groups' Achievement Comparisonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For these reasons, some authors have considered approaches of fuzzy statistics to deal appropriately with fuzziness in data and hypotheses formulation. In the literature of fuzzy hypothesis testing, there are a few publications considering the sign test in fuzzy environments (see Chukhrova and Johannssen, 3 for a systematic review): Fuzzy/interval‐valued data caused by the imprecision of observations (see Grzegorzewski, 4,5 Grzegorzewski and Spiewak, 6‐8 Hesamian and Chachi, 9 Hesamian and Taheri, 10 Kahraman et al, 11 Momeni and Sadeghpour‐Gildeh, 12 and Shams and Hesamian 13 ), that is, fuzzy data as perception of a crisp but unobservable random variable (so called epistemic perspective, see Couso and Dubois 14 ), or fuzzy set‐/interval‐valued random variables (so called ontic perspective) (see Grzegorzewski and Spiewak 6,7 ). Fuzzy/interval‐valued hypotheses caused by fuzzy quantiles like the fuzzy median (see Grzegorzewski and Spiewak 6,7 ) or imprecision of linguistic statements on quantiles (see Hesamian and Chachi, 9 Hesamian and Taheri, 10 Momeni and Sadeghpour‐Gildeh, 12 and Shams and Hesamian 13 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fuzzy/interval‐valued data caused by the imprecision of observations (see Grzegorzewski, 4,5 Grzegorzewski and Spiewak, 6‐8 Hesamian and Chachi, 9 Hesamian and Taheri, 10 Kahraman et al, 11 Momeni and Sadeghpour‐Gildeh, 12 and Shams and Hesamian 13 ), that is, fuzzy data as perception of a crisp but unobservable random variable (so called epistemic perspective, see Couso and Dubois 14 ), or fuzzy set‐/interval‐valued random variables (so called ontic perspective) (see Grzegorzewski and Spiewak 6,7 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation