108 views

Uploaded by Sameer Al-Subh

Pak. J. Statist. 2009 Vol. 25(3), 265-274 EDF GOODNESS OF FIT TESTS OF LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION UNDER SELECTIVE ORDER STATISTICS S.A. Al-Subh1, M.T. Alodat2, K. Ibrahim3 and A.A. Jemain4 1,3,4 Department of Statistics, Kebangsaan University, Malaysia 2 Department of Statistics, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan Email: 1salsubh@yahoo.com, 2alodatmts@yahoo.com 3 kamarulz@ukm.my, 4kpsm@ukm.my ABSTRACT In this paper a comparative study is made for the efficiency of an empirical distribution function go

save

- Colorado Presentation Damian
- The math of Nxt forging
- Homo Gen
- GOODNESS OF FIT TEST FOR LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION INVOLVING KULLBACK-LEIBLER INFORMATION
- Empirical Characteristic Function Approach to Goodness of Fit Tests
- 18 Kamarulzaman
- Modified EDF Goodness of Fit Tests for Logistic Distribution Under SRS and ERSS
- Logistic Parameters Estimation
- eswaon2 1
- Practice Exam 1 Stats
- w11739.pdf
- Statistics, data anaysis
- Card
- Agents
- Test_2A_KEY
- Introductory Statistics.docx
- UM18MB502 QM-1 Unit 1 Practice Problems
- Prerequisites Maths
- 18 Kamarulzaman
- 18 Kamarulzaman
- 18 Kamarulzaman
- 18 Kamarulzaman
- Sameer-C.v Sept 5 2018
- Institut Statistik Malaysia - UM-KL
- Sameer Al-Subh C.V
- Conference-Malaysia- Icms2 Parallel Sessions[1]
- Modified EDF Goodness of Fit Tests for Logistic Distribution Under SRS and ERSS
- Logistic Parameters Estimation
- Volume 1-Conference ICCS-X
- Volume 2- conference-ICCS-X
- Proc.CIAM2010[1]
- 2014. Playing Beautifully When You Have to Be Fast
- Unit II - Parametric & Non-parametric Tests
- Ricci Distributions En
- F-test
- Chapter 14 (The Chi-Square Test)
- Seminar Statistics
- Nonparametric Test
- Chi Square Test
- Chi Square
- Goodness of Fit Negative Binomial r
- Minitab Demonstration for Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test and Chi-Square Test of Independence
- 5logreg Beamer Online
- AEESP Statchap Peters
- ASB_Assignment VC.docx
- Question Bank on Research Methodology
- Experfit Compare Contenido
- Math 15
- The Influence of Locus of Control , Knowledge Sharing And A Professional Ethics To Nurse Professionalism Throught Individual Learning In Mother And Child Hospital At South Sulawesi Province
- 16.Regression.with.Life.Data.pdf
- 00110
- Celebrity Endorsements
- Mb0040 Slm Unit10
- Business statistics
- Magurran2
- Stats 1011 Notes Semester 1
- The Rationale For Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Missions: An Appraisal
- Statdisk User Manual
- unitplan2 chi-square (2)
- Lampiran Hymos
- ADDINDO Shopping Behavior of Indonesian Consumer Towards Imported

You are on page 1of 10

UNDER SELECTIVE ORDER STATISTICS

1,3,4

Department of Statistics, Kebangsaan University, Malaysia

2

Department of Statistics, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan

Email: 1salsubh@yahoo.com, 2alodatmts@yahoo.com

3

kamarulz@ukm.my, 4kpsm@ukm.my

ABSTRACT

In this paper a comparative study is made for the efficiency of an empirical

distribution function goodness of fit tests. The tests are used for the logistic distribution.

A new method is introduced to improve the efficiency of these tests under ranked set

sampling. Simulation is used to show that the tests are more efficient than their

counterparts in simple random sampling. The percentage points are obtained under the

null hypotheses.

KEYWORDS

Goodness of fit test; Empirical distribution function; Logistic distribution; Ranked set

sampling; Simple random sampling.

1. INTRODUCTION

McIntyre (1952) introduced a new sampling scheme called Ranked Set Sampling (RSS).

RSS gives a sample which is more informative than a simple random sample (SRS) about

the population of interest. This technique can be described as follows. Select m random

samples from the population of interest each of size m . From the i th sample detect, using

a visual inspection, the i th order statistic and choose it for actual quantifications, say, Yi ,

i 1,..., m . Assuming the ranking is perfect, RSS is the set of the order statistics

Y1 ,..., Ym . The technique could be repeated r times to get more observations. These

resulting measurements form an RSS of size rm. Takahasi and Wakimoto (1968) gave

the theoretical setups for RSS. They showed that the mean of an RSS is minimum

variance unbiased estimator for the population mean. Dell and Clutter (1972) showed that

RSS mean remains unbiased and more efficient than SRS mean for estimating the

population even if ranking is not perfect. Stockes and Sager (1988) studied the

characterization of RSS. Also, they gave an unbiased estimator for the population

distribution function based on the empirical distribution function of RSS. Then, they

proposed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit test based on the empirical distribution

function. They derived the null distribution of their proposed test. Samawi et al. (1996)

investigated Extreme Ranked Set Sample (ERSS), i.e. they quantify the smallest and the

largest order statistics. Bhoj (1997) proposed a modification to RSS and called it new

ranked set sampling (NRSS). He used this method to estimate the location and scale

© 2009 Pakistan Journal of Statistics 265

266 EDF Goodness of fit tests of logistic distribution under selective order statistics

parameters of the rectangular and logistic distributions. Muttlak (1997) introduced the

Median Ranked Set Sampling (MRSS) which consists of quantifying only the median in

each set. Al-Odat and Al-Saleh (2001) introduced the concept of varied set size RSS,

which is called later by moving extremes ranked set sampling (MERSS). They

investigated this modification for the location-scale family and found that the procedure

produces more efficient estimators for location and scale parameters. A comprehensive

survey about developments in RSS can be found in Chen (2000).

In fact, two factors affect the efficiency of an RSS, the set size and the ranking errors.

The larger the set size, the larger efficiency of RSS. Thus the larger the set size, the more

difficulty in visual ranking and ranking errors (Al-Saleh and Al-Omari, 2002). For this,

several authors modified RSS to reduce the error in ranking and to make visual ranking

tractable by an experimenter.

Stephens (1974) gave a practical guide to goodness of fit tests using statistics based

on the empirical distribution function (EDF). Stephens (1979) gave goodness of fit tests

for logistic distribution based on a SRS. A comprehensive survey for goodness of fit tests

based on SRS can be found in the book of Stephens (1986). Al-Subh et al. (2008)

introduced a new method to improve the power of the chi-square test for goodness of fit

based on RSS. They used the Kullback-Leibler information to compare the data collected

via both SRS and RSS. They conducted a simulation study for the power of chi-square

test of the new method.

Through the last two decades, the goodness of fit tests based on data collected via

RSS technique and its modifications have not taken the attention of authors. In this paper,

we propose a new method is proposed to improve the efficiency of the empirical

distribution function goodness of fit tests for logistic distribution under RSS, as a ratio of

powers.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce an empirical

distribution function (EDF) goodness of fit tests in SRS and RSS to improve the power of

these test statistics under RSS. We apply these test statistics for the logistic distribution in

Section 3. In Section 4, we are defined two algorithms to calculate the percentage points

and the power function at an alternative distribution. In Section 5, a simulation study is

conducted to study the efficiency of these test statistics under RSS with its SRS

counterpart. In Section 6, we state our conclusions.

Let X1 , X 2 ,..., X r be a random sample from the distribution function F ( x) . Assume

that the objective is to test the statistical hypotheses H o : F ( x) Fo ( x)x, vs.

H1 : F ( x) Fo ( x) for some x , where Fo ( x) is a known distribution function.

We define the EDF goodness of fit tests in SRS as follows:

a) The Kolmogorov statistics: D , D , D

D max 1i r i / r z i ,

D max 1i r zi (i 1) / r ,

Al-Subh, Alodat, Ibrahim and Jemain 267

D max D , D ,

where zi ( xi ) / , i 1, 2,..., r and r is the sample size.

r 2

W 2 zi 2i 1 / 2r 1/ 12r ,

i 1

V D D ,

2

1 r

U 2 W 2 r z , where z zi / r ,

2 i 1

r

A2 2i 1 ln zi ln 1 zr 1i r r .

i 1

It can be noted that testing the hypotheses H o : F ( x) F o ( x), x is equivalent to

testing the hypotheses H o* : Gi ( y ) G io ( y ), y vs. H1* : Gi ( y ) G io ( y ) for some i,

where Gi ( y ), G io ( y ) are the cdf’s of the i th order statistics of random samples of size

2m 1 chosen from F ( x) and F o ( x) , respectively. The reason of choosing an odd set

size, rather than an even one, is to simplify the comparison with the median RSS. Since

an even set size produces two middles values. Moreover, quantifying the two middle

sample units is more expensive than quantifying one sampling unit. According to Arnold

et al. (1992) Gi ( y ) and G io ( y ) have the following representations:

2 m 1 2m 1

j (2 m 1) j

Gi ( y ) [ F ( y )] [1 F ( y )]

j i j

and

2 m 1 2m 1

j (2 m 1) j

Gio ( y ) [ Fo ( y )] [1 Fo ( y )] ,

j i j

respectively. For example, in case of m 2, i 1, 2 and 3 , and the cdf’s Gi ( y ) ' s and

G io ( y ) ' s are given by

268 EDF Goodness of fit tests of logistic distribution under selective order statistics

G1 ( y ) 1 [1 F ( y )]3 ,

G1o ( y ) 1 [1 Fo ( y )]3 .

G2 ( y ) 3F 2 ( y )(1 F ( y )] F 3 ( y ),

3F 2 ( y ) 2 F 3 ( y ),

G2o ( y ) 3Fo2 ( y ) 2 Fo3 ( y ).

and

G3 ( y ) F 3 ( y ),

G3o ( y ) Fo3 ( y ).

It is easy to show that the equation Gi ( y )=G io ( y ) has the unique solution

F ( x) Fo ( x).

If we apply ranked set sampling to collect the data using the i th order statistic, then

we may use the resulting data to build empirical distribution function goodness of fit tests

for the hypotheses H o* vs. H1* . Let Y1 ,..., Yr be a random sample of size r selected via

the i th order statistic. Let T denote a test in (1) and T * denotes its counterpart in RSS

when testing H o* vs. H1* using the data Y1 ,..., Yr .

In this paper, attention is restricted to the case when F o ( x) (1 e ( x )/ )-1 , i.e., for

the logistic distribution. Moreover, a simulation study is conducted to show that test T *

is more powerful than test T in a comparison based on samples with the same size. The

power of the T * test can be calculated according to the equation

Power of T * ( H ) PH (T * d ), (2)

where H is a cdf under the alternative hypothesis H1* . Here d is the 100 percentage

point of the distribution of T * and H o . Since the behavior of RSS test statistics relative

to SRS test statistics, we will calculate the efficiency of the test statistics as a ratio of

powers.

power of T *

eff (T * , T ) ,

power of T

Al-Subh, Alodat, Ibrahim and Jemain 269

H o : F ( x) Fo ( x) x, vs. H1 : F ( x) Fo ( x)

F0 ( x) (1 e ( x )/ )1 ,

2 m 1 2m 1

j (2 m 1) j

Gi ( y ) [ F ( y )] [1 F ( y )] ,

j i j

and

2 m 1 2m 1

j (2 m 1) j

Gio ( y ) [ Fo ( y )] [1 Fo ( y )] .

j i j

If and are unknown, then their estimation is made using maximum likelihood

estimator from l (, ) , the likelihood function of the data, i.e.,

r (2m 1)!

l (, ) [ Fo ( yi ; , )]i 1[1 Fo ( yi ; , )]2 m 1i f o ( yi ; , ),

i 1 (i 1)!(2m 1 i )!

where

e ( y )/

f o ( y; , ) , y .

(1 e ( y )/ ) 2

We perform a goodness of fit test for the hypotheses

H o* : Gi ( y ) G io ( y ) vs. H1* : Gi ( y ) G io ( y ).

using the tests give in (1) and using the data Y1 ,..., Yr .

With out loss of generality we assume 0, 1 . To compare the powers of T *

and T ; The following algorithm is designed to calculate the percentage points:

1. Let Y1 ,..., Yr be a random sample from G i 0 ( x), i 1, 2, 3.

1 r 1 ,Y(i ) j x,

Fr * ( x) I (Y(i ) j x), I (Y(i ) j x) (3)

r j 1 0 , o.w,

4. Repeat the steps (1-4 ) 10, 000 times to get T1* ,..., T10,000

*

.

270 EDF Goodness of fit tests of logistic distribution under selective order statistics

T1* ,..., T10,000

*

design the following algorithm:

2. Find the EDF Fr* ( x) as in (3).

3. Calculate the value of T * as in (1) but using the data Y1 ,..., Yr .

4. Repeat the steps (1) - (3), 10,000 times to get T1* ,..., T10,000

*

.

1 10,000

5. Power of T * ( H ) *

I (Tt d ) , where I (.) stands for indicator

10,000 t 1

function

5. SIMULATION RESULTS

The power of each test is approximated based on a Monte Carlo simulation of 10,000

iterations according to the algorithm of Section 3. We compared the efficiency of

the tests for different samples sizes: r 10, 20, 30 , different set sizes: m 1, 2, 3, 4

(m=1 mean SRS case) and different alternative distributions: Normal N (0, 1),

Laplace L(0, 1), Lognormal LN (0, 1), Cauchy C (0, 1), StudentT S (5), and

Uniform U (0, 1). The Simulation results are presented in the Tables (1)-(3). For

Uniform distribution, computations show that the efficiency of all tests equal one, so

these efficiency have not been reported in Tables (1)-(3). The tables of minimum are

deleted for the symmetric distribution.

Table 1

Efficiency values for SRS and RSS (using first order statistics)

Minimum, 0.05.

H Test r 10 m r 20 m r 30 m

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

D n 1 8.67 17.98 22.14 1 9.6 12.31 12.49 1 6.26 6.67 6.67

LN (0,1) W 2

1 14.23 31.38 36.96 1 12.56 15.76 15.87 1 5.68 5.95 5.95

2

U 1 1.52 2.34 2.97 1 1.41 1.69 1.78 1 1.18 1.24 1.25

Al-Subh, Alodat, Ibrahim and Jemain 271

Table 2

Efficiency values for SRS and RSS (using median)

Median, 0.05.

H Test r 10 m r 20 m r 30 m

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

D n 1 1.14 1.03 1.11 1 1 1.01 0.94 1 1.06 0.97 1

V n 1 0.90 0.88 0.86 1 0.93 0.92 0.91 1 0.96 0.94 0.89

N (0, 1) W2 1 1.08 0.96 0.96 1 1.01 0.89 0.87 1 1 0.96 0.94

2

U 1 1.03 0.88 0.84 1 0.93 0.92 0.92 1 0.94 0.93 0.90

A2 1 1.33 1.11 1.11 1 0.97 0.84 0.88 1 1.07 0.93 0.93

D n 1 0.80 0.96 0.89 1 0.99 1.30 1.47 1 1.47 1.55 1.81

V n 1 1.28 1.46 1.59 1 1.40 1.57 1.77 1 1.42 1.53 1.64

L (0,1) W2 1 0.72 0.80 0.92 1 0.96 1.33 1.72 1 1.91 2.17 2.70

U2 1 1.35 1.47 1.70 1 1.40 1.61 1.74 1 1.40 1.52 1.61

A2 1 0.47 0.59 0.65 1 0.95 1.39 1.84 1 2.04 2.44 3.14

D n 1 0.94 1.09 0.89 1 0.88 0.87 0.88 1 0.89 0.95 0.97

V n 1 0.92 0.88 0.87 1 0.92 0.89 0.89 1 0.94 0.90 0.89

LN (0,1) W2 1 0.87 1.13 0.87 1 0.88 0.88 0.81 1 0.94 0.90 0.98

2

U 1 0.89 0.87 0.85 1 0.95 0.91 0.91 1 0.95 0.92 0.92

A2 1 0.82 1.09 0.73 1 0.88 0.77 0.78 1 0.85 0.84 0.89

D n 1 0.73 0.88 0.71 1 0.92 0.86 0.94 1 1.21 1.02 1.23

V n 1 0.92 1.42 1.16 1 0.95 1.15 1.20 1 0.98 1.12 1.35

C (0, 1) W2 1 0.80 0.73 0.69 1 0.83 0.66 0.72 1 0.92 0.73 0.90

2

U 1 1.03 1.66 1.28 1 1 1.37 1.37 1 1.19 1.43 1.74

A2 1 0.36 0.17 0.12 1 0.32 0.14 0.11 1 0.32 0.14 0.11

D n 1 0.69 0.79 0.62 1 0.80 0.74 0.81 1 0.82 0.82 0.80

V n 1 0.96 0.38 0.93 1 1.02 1.03 1 1 1.07 1.07 1.05

S (5) W2 1 0.68 1.12 0.68 1 0.76 0.74 0.85 1 0.96 0.94 1.03

2

U 1 0.95 0.36 0.98 1 1.01 1.03 1.02 1 1.08 1.07 1.05

2 1 0.55 3.25 0.55 1 0.71 0.63 0.75 1 0.98 0.97 1.03

A

272 EDF Goodness of fit tests of logistic distribution under selective order statistics

Table 3

Efficiency values for SRS and RSS (using largest order statistics)

Maxima, 0.05.

H Test r 10 m r 20 m r 30 m

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

D n 1 9.51 19.36 23.87 1 8.36 10.79 10.99 1 6.74 7.19 7.19

V n 1 1.43 2.26 2.93 1 1.40 1.77 1.85 1 1.25 1.35 1.36

N (0, 1) W2 1 15.75 33.58 39.96 1 10.44 13.21 13.33 1 6.59 6.90 6.90

2

U 1 1.38 2.07 2.63 1 1.30 1.60 1.68 1 1.21 1.28 1.29

A2 1 25.91 66.36 86 1 10.83 14.33 14.49 1 5 5.24 5.24

D n 1 3.98 6.03 7.55 1 3.30 4.88 5.55 1 3.44 4.62 5.38

V n 1 0.87 1 1.02 1 0.96 0.97 1.05 1 1.04 1.03 1.12

L (0,1) W2 1 6.27 10.08 13.07 1 6 9.33 10.92 1 5.87 8.08 9.27

U2 1 0.87 1.01 1 1 0.90 0.89 0.97 1 0.93 0.92 0.99

A2 1 8.27 16.27 22.80 1 6.95 12.34 15.18 1 5.92 8.82 10.51

D n 1 9.08 18.88 23.25 1 8.10 10.52 10.63 1 5.95 6.32 6.33

V n 1 1.65 2.47 3.21 1 1.40 1.76 1.85 1 1.24 1.32 1.33

LN (0,1) W2 1 15.39 35.43 41.83 1 10.04 12.58 12.66 1 6.22 6.49 6.49

2

U 1 1.56 2.28 2.90 1 1.31 1.60 1.67 1 1.19 1.25 1.26

A2 1 24.27 68.45 86 1 10.63 13.78 13.89 1 4.53 4.74 4.74

D n 1 1.76 3.04 4.34 1 2.76 4.49 5.44 1 2.55 3.91 3.40

V n 1 2.01 3.18 3.97 1 2.61 3.51 3.54 1 2.26 2.29 1.72

C (0, 1) W2 1 1.51 2.60 3.89 1 2.16 3.86 4.95 1 2 3.55 3.30

2

U 1 2.23 3.67 4.53 1 3.27 4.55 4.54 1 3.09 3.09 2.30

A2 1 1.08 1.38 1.39 1 1.03 1 0.80 1 0.84 0.62 0.41

D n 1 4.13 7.83 10.33 1 5.06 8.31 10.26 1 4.30 6.31 7.01

V n 1 1.21 1.55 1.86 1 1.19 1.49 1.88 1 1.16 1.48 1.70

S (5) W2 1 6.03 12.21 16.58 1 7.60 12.76 15.40 1 5.88 8.51 9.27

2

U 1 1.11 1.48 1.74 1 1.18 1.40 1.72 1 1.13 1.39 1.56

2 1 7 17 25.33 1 7.89 14.96 18.51 1 5.26 8.15 9.05

A

Al-Subh, Alodat, Ibrahim and Jemain 273

1. In general, the efficiency is increasing as the sample size r increases, except for

the V n and U 2 tests in the Laplace case.

2. The efficiency is increasing as the set size m increases, except for the V n and

U 2 tests in the Laplace case.

3. The EDF tests based on the i th order statistic (i=1, 2, 3) are more efficient than

the EDF tests based on the SRS case (m=1) of the same size except for the A2 test

in the Cauchy case.

4. It can be noted from Table 2 (median case) that the efficiencies of the modified

tests are less than their counterpart in SRS case for Normal, Lognormal, Cauchy

and Student distributions.

5. For Laplace distribution, it can be noted from Table 2 that the efficiencies of the

modified tests are grater than their counterpart in SRS case, except for the

D n , W 2 and A2 tests.

6. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have improved the EDF tests for goodness of fit when the data is

collected via selective order statistics. We have considered RSS schemes that quantify

only one order statistic namely minimum, median and maximum. Since it is easier for the

experimenter to detect the extreme order statistics by visual inspection, then this makes

the new method easy to apply and robust against ranking error. The theory developed

could be extended easily to other distributions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank the editor for directions and discussions. Also, the

authors would like to thank the referees for useful comments and suggestions.

REFERENCES

1. Al-Odat, M.T. and Al-Saleh, M.F. (2001). A variation of ranked set sampling. J. App.

Statist. Sc., 10, 137-146.

2. Al-Saleh, M.F and Alomari, A.I. (2002). Multistage ranked set sampling. J. Statist.

Plann. Infer., 102, 273-286.

3. Al-Subh, S.A., Alodat, M.T, Kamarlzaman, I. and Jemain, A. (2008). Chi-square Test

for Goodness of Fit Using Ranked Set Sampling. Submitted.

4. Arnold, B.C., Balakrishnan, N. and Nagaraja, H.N. (1992). A First Course in Order

Statistics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

5. Balakrishnan, N. (1992). Handbook of the logistic distribution. New York, Marcel

Dekker, Inc.

6. Bhoj, D.S. (1997). Estimation of parameters of the extreme value distribution using

ranked set sampling. Commun. Statist-Theory Meth., 26(3), 653-667.

274 EDF Goodness of fit tests of logistic distribution under selective order statistics

7. Chandra, M., Singpurwalla, N.D. and Stephens, M.A. (1981). Kolmogorov statistics

for tests of fit for the extreme value and weibull distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.,

76(375), 729-731.

8. Chen, Z. (2000). On ranked-set sample quantiles and their applications. J. Statist.

Plann. Infer., 83, 125-135.

9. D'Agostine, R., Stephens. M. (1986). Goodness of fit Techniques. Marcel Dekker Inc.,

New York.

10. Dell, D.R. and Clutter, J.L. (1972). Ranked set sampling theory with order statistics

background. Biometrics, 28, 545-555.

11. McIntyre, G.A. (1952). A method of unbiased selective sampling using ranked sets.

Austrl. J. Agri. Res., 3, 385-390.

12. Muttlak, H.A. (1997). Median ranked set sampling. J. App. Statist. Sc., 6, 245-255.

13. Patil, G.P., Sinha, A.K. and Taillie, C. (1994). Ranked set sampling. In: G.P. Patil and

C.R. Rao (eds.), Handbook of Statistics, 12: Environmental Statistics. North Holland

Elsevier, New York, 167-200.

14. Patil, G.P. (2002). Ranked Set Sampling. In Encyclopedia of Environmetrics,

El-Shaarawi, A.H. and Piergorsch, W.W. (eds.), 3, 1684-1690. Wiley: Chichester.

15. Samawi, H.M., Ahmed, M.S. and Abu-Dayyeh, W. (1996). Estimating the population

mean using extreme ranked set sampling. Biometrical Journal, 38, 5, 577-586.

16. Samawi, H.M. and Al-Sagheer, O.A. (2001). On the estimation of the distribution

function using extreme and median ranked set sampling. Biometrical Journal. 43(3),

357-373.

17. Sinha, B.K., Sinha, B.K. and Purkayastha, S. (1996). On some aspects of ranked set

sampling for estimation of normal and exponential parameters. Statistics and

Decisions, 14, 223-240.

18. Stephens, M.A. (1974). EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons.

J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 69, 730-737.

19. Stephens, M.A. (1977). Goodness of fit for the extreme value distribution. Journal of

Biometrika, 64, 583-588.

20. Stephens, M.A. (1979). Tests of fit for the logistic distribution based on the empirical

distribution function. Journal of Biometrika, 66(3), 591-595.

21. Stockes, S.L. and Sager, T.W. (1988). Characterization of a Ranked -Set Sample with

Application to Estimating Distribution Functions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., 83(402),

374-381.

22. Takahasi, K. and Wakitmoto, K. (1968). On unbiased estimates of the population

mean based on the sample stratified by means of ordering. Ann. Inst. Statist. Math.,

20, 1-31.

- Colorado Presentation DamianUploaded byRichard Wenning
- The math of Nxt forgingUploaded byPetr
- Homo GenUploaded bydhiladamour
- GOODNESS OF FIT TEST FOR LOGISTIC DISTRIBUTION INVOLVING KULLBACK-LEIBLER INFORMATIONUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Empirical Characteristic Function Approach to Goodness of Fit TestsUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- 18 KamarulzamanUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Modified EDF Goodness of Fit Tests for Logistic Distribution Under SRS and ERSSUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Logistic Parameters EstimationUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- eswaon2 1Uploaded byapi-238365966
- Practice Exam 1 StatsUploaded byAditya P Banerjee
- w11739.pdfUploaded byAlejandro Granda Sandoval
- Statistics, data anaysisUploaded bycarolinascastillo
- CardUploaded byikembanna
- AgentsUploaded byAlberto
- Test_2A_KEYUploaded bycamillesyp
- Introductory Statistics.docxUploaded byOvaizOwais
- UM18MB502 QM-1 Unit 1 Practice ProblemsUploaded bychandrika
- Prerequisites MathsUploaded byaasimalam

- 18 KamarulzamanUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- 18 KamarulzamanUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- 18 KamarulzamanUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- 18 KamarulzamanUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Sameer-C.v Sept 5 2018Uploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Institut Statistik Malaysia - UM-KLUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Sameer Al-Subh C.VUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Conference-Malaysia- Icms2 Parallel Sessions[1]Uploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Modified EDF Goodness of Fit Tests for Logistic Distribution Under SRS and ERSSUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Logistic Parameters EstimationUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Volume 1-Conference ICCS-XUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Volume 2- conference-ICCS-XUploaded bySameer Al-Subh
- Proc.CIAM2010[1]Uploaded bySameer Al-Subh

- 2014. Playing Beautifully When You Have to Be FastUploaded byHenry Yuda Oktadus
- Unit II - Parametric & Non-parametric TestsUploaded byJagadeesh Rocckz
- Ricci Distributions EnUploaded byJorge Romero
- F-testUploaded byAmiya Kumar Sahoo
- Chapter 14 (The Chi-Square Test)Uploaded byJakeNK94
- Seminar StatisticsUploaded byCristina Tomiță
- Nonparametric TestUploaded byMichael Villame
- Chi Square TestUploaded byParul Mittal
- Chi SquareUploaded byAlicia Yeo
- Goodness of Fit Negative Binomial rUploaded byTimothy
- Minitab Demonstration for Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test and Chi-Square Test of IndependenceUploaded byAji. Setiawan
- 5logreg Beamer OnlineUploaded byCésar López Godoy
- AEESP Statchap PetersUploaded byabraha gebru
- ASB_Assignment VC.docxUploaded byVentzico
- Question Bank on Research MethodologyUploaded byajayinstyle
- Experfit Compare ContenidoUploaded byLizeth Paola Juliao Arteta
- Math 15Uploaded byKilliam Wettler
- The Influence of Locus of Control , Knowledge Sharing And A Professional Ethics To Nurse Professionalism Throught Individual Learning In Mother And Child Hospital At South Sulawesi ProvinceUploaded byinventionjournals
- 16.Regression.with.Life.Data.pdfUploaded byKarunesh Kumar
- 00110Uploaded byGiora Rozmarin
- Celebrity EndorsementsUploaded byalokdking
- Mb0040 Slm Unit10Uploaded bySmu Sovabazar
- Business statisticsUploaded byRohit Bansal
- Magurran2Uploaded byMD1000
- Stats 1011 Notes Semester 1Uploaded byAlan Sheppard
- The Rationale For Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Missions: An AppraisalUploaded byinventionjournals
- Statdisk User ManualUploaded bymspandey2000
- unitplan2 chi-square (2)Uploaded byapi-285549920
- Lampiran HymosUploaded byEndahWidiastuti
- ADDINDO Shopping Behavior of Indonesian Consumer Towards ImportedUploaded bydindo_wae