EXPERIMENT 16 9th April 2021

AIM: To apply suitable non-parametric tests for the given data.

EXPERIMENT:

1. The following table gives oral socialization anxiety and oral explanation of illness for the following societies:

16 societies with oral explanation absent along with ranking on oral socialization anxiety
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
13 12 12 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6
23 societies with oral explanation present along with ranking on oral socialization anxiety
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 11
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
11 10 10 10 8 8 6

Apply a suitable non-parametric test to determine whether societies with oral explanation of illness present are
stochastically higher in oral socialization anxiety societies which don't have it present
2. Consider a phase II clinical trial designed to investigate the effectiveness of a new drug to reduce the
symptoms of asthma in children. A total of n=10 participants are randomized to receive either the new drug
or a placebo. Participants are asked the record the number of episodes of shortness of breath over a 1-week
period following receipt of the assigned treatment. The data are shown below.
Placebo 7 5 6 4 12
New Drug 3 6 4 2 1

Is there a difference in the number of episodes of shortness of breath over a 1week period in participants receiving
the new drug as compared to those receiving the placebo? By inspection, it appears that participants receiving the
placebo have more episodes of shortness of breath, but is this statistically significant?

3. A clinical trial is run to assess the effectiveness of a new anti-retroviral therapy for patients with HIV.
Patients are randomized to receive a standard anti-retroviral therapy (usual care) or the new anti-retroviral
therapy and are monitored for 3 months. The primary outcome is viral load which represents the number of
HIV copies per millilitre of blood. A total of 30 participants are randomized and the data are shown below.

Standard Therapy New Therapy

7500 400
8000 250
2000 800
550 1400
1250 8000
1000 7400
2250 1020
6800 6000
3400 920
6300 1420
9100 2700
970 4200
1040 5200
670 4100
400 undetectable
 Is there statistical evidence of a difference in viral load in patients receiving the standard versus the new
anti-retroviral therapy?

THEORY:

Mann Whitney U Test

This is the most powerful non-parametric test and the most useful alternative to the parametric t-test, for the
difference of means.

1. Let
n1 = number of cases in the smaller of the two groups and,
n2 = number of cases on larger of the 2 groups.

2. To apply U test, combine the observations or scores from both the groups and rank these in ascending order,
giving lowest rank to the smallest observation.
or use formula
(𝑛1 )∗(𝑛1 −1)
U1=. 𝑛1 𝑛2 + 2
− 𝑅1
(𝑛2 )∗(𝑛2 +1)
U2=. 𝑛1 𝑛2 + − 𝑅2
2
Where, R1 and R2 are the sum of ranks of both the groups respectively.

3. Focusing on one of the groups, say with n1 cases, then U is the number of times a score in the group with n2
cases precedes a score in the group with n1 cases in the ranking.

4. The sampling distribution of U under Ho, is known and we can use the same to test the hypothesis.

Very small sample case

 Neither n1 nor n2 is larger than 8

 Use Table J, here the probabilities are given for one tailed test. To test for value of two tailed test, the value
of p should be doubled.
 U = n1 n2 -U’ ; U’ is the larger value

Small sample case

 When 9 ≤ n2 = number of cases on larger ≤ 20

 Use Table K, to compare the smaller value of U

Large sample case

When n2 > 20, the sampling distribution of U rapidly approaches the normal distribution with
𝑛1 𝑛2
 Mean = μu = 2
𝑛 𝑛 (𝑛 +𝑛 +1)
 Variance =σu2= 1 2 1 2 12
 Then we construct,
U− μ𝑢
Z= σ𝑢
~ N (0,1) and apply to normal test.

5. Correction of ties

Applied to the Standard Deviation of the sampling distribution of U.

𝑛 𝑛
1 2 𝑁 3−𝑁
σu = √(𝑁(𝑁−1) ⌊
12
− ∑ 𝑇⌋)

where, N = 𝑛1 + 𝑛2
 𝑡 3 −t
T= 12
𝑛 𝑛
U− μ𝑢 U− 1 2
2
And Z = 𝑛1 𝑛2 𝑁3 −𝑁
~ N (0,1)
σ𝑢 √( ⌊ −∑ 𝑇⌋)
𝑁(𝑁−1) 12

CALCULATIONS:

1.

Ho: Oral socialization anxiety is equally severe in both societies with oral explanations of illness present and societies
with oral explanations absent.

H1: Societies with oral explanations of illness present are (stochastically) higher in oral socialisation anxiety than
societies which do not have oral explanations of illness.

n1 (no. of cases in the smaller group) = 16

n2 (no. of cases in the larger group) = 23 (Case of large sample)
N = n1 + n2 = 39
We now arrange the combined series in ascending order giving rank 1 to lowest and rank 39 to the largest value.
Then, replacing the observations in samples by their rank value
Societies with oral Rating on oral Societies with oral Rating on oral
Rank Rank
explanations absent socialization anxiety explanations present socialization anxiety
1 13 29.5 1 17 39
2 12 24.5 2 16 38
3 12 24.5 3 15 36
4 10 16 4 15 36
5 10 16 5 15 36
6 10 16 6 14 33
7 10 16 7 14 33
8 9 12 8 14 33
9 8 9.5 9 13 29.5
10 8 9.5 10 13 29.5
11 7 5 11 13 29.5
12 7 5 12 12 24.5
13 7 5 13 12 24.5
14 7 5 14 12 24.5
15 7 5 15 12 24.5
16 6 1.5 16 11 20.5
R1 = 200 17 11 20.5
18 10 16
19 10 16
20 10 16
21 8 9.5
22 8 9.5
23 6 1.5
R1 = 580
U1 =304
U2 =64

Considering the smallest value of U i.e., U = 64

Mean = 184
 Tied Groups
𝐭𝟑 − 𝐭
t 𝐓=
𝟏𝟐
6 2 0.5
7 5 10
8 4 5
10 7 28
11 2 0.5
12 6 17.5
13 4 5
14 3 2
15 3 2
SUM 𝟕𝟎. 𝟓

𝜎 2 = 1209.161
(16)(23)
304 −2
z= = −3.45095
(16)(23) (39)2 − 39
√ ( − 70.5)
39(39 − 1) 12
ztab = −1.645

2.
Let X and Y be the number of episodes of shortness of breath experienced by patients receiving the placebo and the
new drug respectively.
Ho: Episodes of shortness of breath are same in participants receiving the placebo and participants receiving the new
drug i.e., p=P(X>Y) =1/2

H1: Episodes of shortness of breath are more in participants receiving the placebo i.e., p>1/2
n1 = 5
n2 = 5
N = n1 + n2 = 10
We will apply U test for very small sample case since both n1 and n2 are smaller than 8.

Placebo (X) Rank of X New Drug (Y) Rank of Y

7 9 3 3
5 6 6 7.5
6 7.5 4 4.5
4 4.5 2 2
12 10 1 1
R1 37 R2 18

U1 = 3
U2 = 22

From the J table, corresponding to n1=n2=5, U=3, we get p-value for U test= 0.028.

Since p-value < 0.05, hence we reject Ho at 5% level of significance. Hence, we may infer that episodes of shortness
of breath are more in participants receiving the placebo.

3.
Ho: There is no difference in viral load in patients receiving the standard versus the new antiretroviral therapy, i.e.,
p=1/2

H1: There is a difference in viral load in patients receiving the standard versus the new antiretroviral therapy, i.e.,
p≠1/2

X=Viral load in patients receiving standard therapy

Y=Viral load in patients receiving new antiretroviral therapy

X Rank of X Y Rank of Y
7500 27 400 3.5
8000 28.5 250 2
2000 16 800 7
550 5 1400 14
1250 13 8000 28.5
1000 10 7400 26
2250 17 1020 11
6800 25 6000 23
3400 19 920 8
6300 24 1420 15
9100 30 2700 18
970 9 4200 21
1040 12 5200 22
670 6 4100 20
400 3.5 0 1
R1 245 R2 220

U1 = 100
U2 = 125
U=min (U1, U2) =100

Critical value of U from table K for n1=n2=15, U=100 is 64.

Since calculated U> tabulated U, hence we may accept Ho at 5% level of significance.

Hence, we can say that there is no difference in viral load in patients receiving the standard versus the new
antiretroviral therapy.

RESULT

1. Since |Z| = 3.45095 > ztab hence, we reject Ho at 5% level of significance. Hence, we may infer that
societies with oral explanations of illness present are (stochastically) higher in oral socialisation anxiety than
societies which do not have oral explanations of illness.

2. Since p-value (0.028) <0.05, hence, we reject Ho at 5% level of significance. Hence, we may infer that
episodes of shortness of breath are more in participants receiving the placebo.

3. Since calculated U (100)> tabulated U (64), hence we may accept Ho at 5% level of significance. Hence, we
can say that there is no difference in viral load in patients receiving the standard versus the new
antiretroviral therapy.