Most of the tests of hypotheses that have been mentioned recently on this list serv are non-spatial, i.e., there is nothing in the underlying statistical assumptions that specifically pertains to spatial data. The one common assumption is "random sampling" or "iid" (independent, identically distributed). In many typical (non-spatial) applications, this assumption is ensured by the "design of the experiment", i.e., the way the data is generated and collected. Spatial data problems more often involve "observational data" which does not easily lend itself to being able to design the experiment in such a way as to ensure this basic assumption.
In the case of spatial data, random site selection does not necessarily correspond to "random sampling". In the case of the random function model implicit in most of geostatistics, the data is a non-random sample from one realization of the random function (in that context using random site selection does not then make it a "random sample"). Note that not all spatial statistical analysis methods are based on this random function model. Normality is another common underlying assumption in many hypothesis tests. In the case of random sampling from a distribution with a finite moment of order 2+delta, delta >0 then the distribution of the sample mean will converge IN DISTRIBUTION to a normal distribution. This means that a sequence of functions is converging to another function. It is important to note that this convergence may be pointwise or uniform or uniform on intervals. Pointwise is you usually get from the Central Limit Theorem, this means that the rate of convergence depends on where you are on the curve. The difference between using a normal statistic vs using a t-statistic usually is the difference between a known variance and an unknown variance (and hence estimated). But in either case the variance is assumed to exist and be finite. The sample variance can always be computed from a data set but that does not ensure that the variance of the distribution exists. The quotient of two standard normal random variables has a Cauchy distribution, neither the mean nor the variance is finite. Hence the Central Limit Theorem does not apply. In the case of a non-normal distribution one really needs to know how robust the test is to deviation from normality, increasing the sample size does not really solve this problem. Finally note that most tests of hypotheses are not exactly "neutral", there is a tendency to accept the null hypothesis UNLESS there is evidence against the null hypothesis, this is one of the reasons for the emphasis on the POWER of the test. Often the null hypothesis is the "status quo" and this logical stance for the null and alternative hypotheses is okay but not in all circumstances. However in some tests for normality (which still depend on the assumption of random sampling) the test is set up in such a way that the null hypothesis corresponds to the conclusion of normality. E.g., Chi-square tests. If you are trying to argue that it is safe to assume normality then you want to accept the null hypothesis and you should want a very high power for the test, you don't want a small p-vallue, instead you want a very large p-value. Note that the normal distribution is symmetric but not all symmetric distributions are normal. Donald Myers
* By using the ai-geostats mailing list you agree to follow its rules ( see http://www.ai-geostats.org/help_ai-geostats.htm ) * To unsubscribe to ai-geostats, send the following in the subject or in the body (plain text format) of an email message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signoff ai-geostats
