[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Nice to see that the old code made sense. > > Nice to see that the new code is working correctly :-) > > > A bit surprising that it > > gives _exactly_ the same result as the blockwise ranking in coin... > > why? Without ties, the conditional and unconditional versions of the tests > should have exactly the same result.
Oh, just that there are a number of little things that could have been done in slightly different but asymptotically equivalent ways. The scale factor for the within-block ranks e.g. > > Perhaps introduce some ties? (round(y,1) is usually effective). > > > > this should generate differences, yes. > > > The trend test is easily fixed: just spell "t value" without capital V > > as we do nowadays. This gives > > > > > > > SKruskal.test(y ~ x | b, data = mydf, trend = TRUE) > > > > Kruskal-Wallis stratified rank sum trend test > > > > data: y , group: x , strata: b , trend: as.numeric(group) > > Z = -0.1624, df = 1, p-value = 0.871 > > > > > SKruskal.test(y ~ x | b, data = mydf, trend = 1:3) > > > > Kruskal-Wallis stratified rank sum trend test > > > > data: y , group: x , strata: b , trend: 1 2 3 > > Z = -0.1624, df = 1, p-value = 0.871 > > > > (The df=1 is a bit misleading in this case...) > > > > maybe report 0.1624^2 = 0.0264 as test statistic (same as with teststat > = "quad" in `coin')? Yes, but there was a point in getting a signed statistic. Otherwise, I might as well have reused the code that used the SSD from the anova table. -- O__ ---- Peter Dalgaard Øster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K (*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen Denmark Ph: (+45) 35327918 ~~~~~~~~~~ - ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FAX: (+45) 35327907 ______________________________________________ R-help@stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
