|
|
Overview
|
|
Note that you cannot have a simple table where the columns are "Time 1" and "Time 2", and the rows are "Exposed" and "Not Exposed", because then observations would appear twice in the table!
The McNemar test uses the chi-square distribution, based on this formula:
The formula above is the usual continuity-corrected version of the McNemar test. One occasionally encounters the uncorrected version, sometimes used for large samples, in which case the "-1" term in the numerator is omitted.
Example:
The sign test is considered a weak test in that it simply assesses how often the two measures in a pair differ in being above or below the median. In contrast to the Wilcoxon test, the sign test does not measure how much the pair differs. When the sign test returns a finding of non-significance ( p > .05), the researcher concludes that one cannot assume the two samples differ.
For the data above, a low-medium-high response was obtained for a weekday sample (Time1) and a weekend sample (Time2), interviewing the same people each time, with distributions shown in the crosstabulation above. The chi-square test, which (wrongly) assumes the samples are independent, shows a high significance level (p = .001), implying that responses significantly correlate between weekdays and weekends. The sign test, which (rightly) assumes the two responses are related samples (not independent) returns a finding of non-significance (p = .490), indicating that one cannot assume that the weekday sample (Time1) differs from the weekend (Time2) sample.
For each year, the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test is non-significant, meaning that the two variables (overall S & P median and technology mutual fund median) cannot be concluded to differ in median value. That is, the chance of getting a standardized signed-ranks difference (the "Z" row above) that high or higher in absolute value is greater than .05, so we fail to reject the null hypothesis that the medians differ. In the "Ranks" table we see that ties are zero. Had ties been numerous, tied cases would have been ignored, introducing the possibility of bias.