# Normality tests don’t do what you think they do

October 23, 2011
By

[This article was first published on Fells Stats » R, and kindly contributed to R-bloggers]. (You can report issue about the content on this page here)
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

Last week a question came up on Stack Overflow about determining whether a variable is distributed normally. Some of the answers reminded me of a common and pervasive misconception about how to apply tests against normality. I felt the topic was general enough to reproduce my comments here (with minor edits).

Misconception: If your statistical analysis requires normality, it is a good idea to use a preliminary hypothesis test to screen for departures from normality.

Shapiro’s test, Anderson Darling, and others are null hypothesis tests against the the assumption of normality. These should not be used to determine whether to use normal theory statistical procedures. In fact they are of virtually no value to the data analyst. Under what conditions are we interested in rejecting the null hypothesis that the data are normally distributed? I, personally, have never come across a situation where a normal test is the right thing to do. The problem is that when the sample size is small, even big departures from normality are not detected, and when your sample size is large, even the smallest deviation from normality will lead to a rejected null.

Let’s look at a small sample example:

 > set.seed(100) > x <- rbinom(15,5,.6) > shapiro.test(x)   Shapiro-Wilk normality test   data: x W = 0.8816, p-value = 0.0502   > x <- rlnorm(20,0,.4) > shapiro.test(x)   Shapiro-Wilk normality test   data: x W = 0.9405, p-value = 0.2453

In both these cases (binomial and lognormal variates) the p-value is > 0.05 causing a failure to reject the null (that the data are normal). Does this mean we are to conclude that the data are normal? (hint: the answer is no). Failure to reject is not the same thing as accepting. This is hypothesis testing 101.

But what about larger sample sizes? Let’s take the case where there the distribution is very nearly normal.

 > library(nortest) > x <- rt(500000,200) > ad.test(x)   Anderson-Darling normality test   data: x A = 1.1003, p-value = 0.006975   > qqnorm(x) > hist(x,breaks=100)

Here we are using a t-distribution with 200 degrees of freedom. The qq and histogram plots show the distribution is closer to normal than any distribution you are likely to see in the real world, but the test rejects normality with a very high degree of confidence.

Does the significant test against normality mean that we should not use normal theory statistics in this case? (Another hint: the answer is no )

To leave a comment for the author, please follow the link and comment on their blog: Fells Stats » R.

R-bloggers.com offers daily e-mail updates about R news and tutorials about learning R and many other topics. Click here if you're looking to post or find an R/data-science job.
Want to share your content on R-bloggers? click here if you have a blog, or here if you don't.

If you got this far, why not subscribe for updates from the site? Choose your flavor: e-mail, twitter, RSS, or facebook...

Tags: ,

Comments are closed.

# Never miss an update! Subscribe to R-bloggers to receive e-mails with the latest R posts.(You will not see this message again.)

Click here to close (This popup will not appear again)