You are on page 1of 49

# STATISTICAL METHODS AND ADVANCED

APPLICATIONS
(SMS 3123)
TITLE : KENDALLS TAU
GROUP : 16

GROUPS MEMBER :
36) NOR AMIN BIN ROZZAHLIM (D20091036056)
28) NOOR IDAYU BT BADARUDDIN (D20091036044)
49) NOOR AMALINA BT OSMAN (D20091036072)

LECTURERS NAME : MR. LIM KIAN BOON

KENDALLS
TAU

LEARNING OUTCOME

To test the null hypothesis
that x and y are independent
(which implies ) against
one of the following
alternative:

0 or 0, , 0 < > = t t t
0 = t
ASSUMPTIONS

1. The data consists of a random sample of n pairs
of numeric or nonnumeric observations.
Each pair of observations represents two
measurement taken on the same unit of
association.

2. The data are measured on at least an ordinal
scale, so that we can rank each X observation in
relation to all other observed Xs and each Y
observation in relation to all other observed Ys.

) ( , i i Y X
KENDALLS TAU TEST :
There are two types of Kendalls Tau Test :
1. Small sample ( Ties and non-ties)
2. Large sample approximation

HYPOTHESES
CASE A ()
Two sided
CASE B (>)
One sided
CASE C (<)
One sided

H0 : X and Y are
independent
H1 : 0

H0 : X and Y are
independent
H1 : >0

H0 : X and Y are
independent
H1 : <0
Small Samples
(Non-ties)

TEST STATISTIC

Test statistic:

where :
S = P - Q
n=number of (X, Y) observations (or rank)

2
) 1 (
^

=
n n
S
t
To obtain P an Q , follow the steps:
1. Arrange the observations in a column
according to the magnitude of the Xs from smallest
to largest X values. Then we say Xs are in natural
order.
2. Compare each Y value, one at a time with each Y
value appearing below it. In making these comparison,
we say that a pair of Y values is in natural order if
the Y below is larger than the Y above. We say that
a pair of Y values is in reverse natural order if the
Y below is smaller than the Y above.
3. P : Total number of pairs in natural order and
Q : Total number of pairs in reverse natural order.
4. S = P Q

) ( , i i Y X

Let say we are given data as below:

Rearrange the data to get the value of P and Q
so that we get value of S :

S = 2 1 = 1

X Y
3 7
1 6
2 3
X Y Y pairs in natural
order
Y pairs in reverse
natural order
1 6 1 1
2 3 1 0
3 7 0 0
P = 2 Q = 1
If all the Y pairs are in natural order, then

and we have

indicating perfect direct correlation between the
ranking of X and Y

2
) 1 (
0
2
) 1 (
, 0 ,
2
) 1 (

=
(

=
= =

=
n n n n
S
Q P S Q
n n
P
1
2
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
=

=
n n
n n
If all the Y pairs in reverse natural orders we have

and

indicating a perfect inverse correlation between the
and Y rankings.
Thus, cannot be greater than +1 or smaller
than -1.

2
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
0
,
2
) 1 (
, 0

=
(

=
=

= =
n n n n
S
Q P S
n n
Q P
1
2
) 1 (
2
) 1 (
=

=
n n
n n

Small Samples
(Ties)
If many ties are present, we may compute by
using the following special formula:

Q - P S
rank given a at tied are n that observatio y of number
rank given a at tied are n that observatio x of number
) 1 (
2
1
) 1 (
2
1
) 1 (
2
1
) 1 (
2
1
^
=
=
=
=
=

=

y
x
y y y
x x x
y x
t
t
t t T
t t T
where
T n n T n n
S
t
To obtain P and Q, follow the steps:
1. List the observation in ascending(natural) order
according to the magnitude of the Xs.
2. Within the tied observations of the Xs, arrange
the Y values in ascending order of magnitude.
3. Count the number of Y pairs in natural order and
the number of Y pairs in reverse natural order as
describe before, but do not compare a Y value
accompanying a tied X value(say, ) with any
other Y value accompanying another X value that
is tied with
a X
a X

We are given data as below:

Rearrange data to get the value of P and Q so that we
get S:

S = 0 2 = -2 ,

X Y
1 3
1 2
2 4
X Y Y pairs in
natural order
Y pairs in
reverse
natural order
1 2 0 1
1 3 0 1
2 1 0 0
P = 0 Q = 2

0 t , 2 t
y x
= =
DECISION
Refer table A.22, page 579
If is unknown, assume =0.05

CASE A
()
CASE B
(>)
CASE C
(<)
Reject H0 if

(two - sided)

Reject H0 if

(one - sided)

Reject H0 if

(one - sided)
2
^
2
^
* - - or *
o o
t t t t < >
o
t t *
^
>
o
t t *
^
<
o
LARGE SAMPLE
APPROXIMATION
LARGE SAMPLE
APPROXIMATION
) 5 2 ( 2
) 1 ( 3
^
+

=
n
n n
z
t
If n>40, use this formula to compute
EXAMPLE-NON TIES
Cravens and Woodruff * conducted a study to design and
test a methodology for analytically determining standards of
sales performance. They reported the data on benchmark
achievement and management rating for 25 sales territories
shown in the Table 9.7. They computed benchmark
achievement as being sales volume divided by benchmark
sales, and based management ratings on salesperson
motivation and effort.
We wish to compute for these data to see whether there
is sufficient evidence to conclude that benchmark
achievement and management rating are directly related.
Although the data are reported as ranks, we follow the same
procedure in computing as we would if the data were
reported in absolute quantities .

*Cravens, David W., and Robert B. Woodruff, An Approach for Determining Criteria
ofSales Perfomance,J. Appl. Psychol., 57 (1973), 242-247.
0.005 use = o
Table 9.7

Territory Benchmark
achievement
(X)
Management
rating (Y)
Territory

Benchmark
achievement
(X)

Management
rating (Y)

1 2 4 14 11 10
2 9 2 15 1 1
3 7 20 16 21 14
4 23 17 17 14 15
5 5 5 18 3 11
6 17 7 19 13 13
7 16 6 20 18 19
8 25 24 21 22 25
9 4 3 22 19 16
10 10 21 23 24 23
11 20 18 24 6 22
12 15 9 25 12 12
13 8 8
SOLUTION:

1) HYPOTHESES

H0: Benchmark achievement and
management rating are independent (=0)

H1: Benchmark achievement and management
rating are directly related (>0) (claim)

2)TEST STATISTICS:
Firstly, arrange the data as in the Table 9.7 so that the X
ranks are in natural order. Then, based on the definitions of
natural order and reverse natural order of Y, find the
number of Y pairs in natural orders and reverse natural
orders. After we complete the arrangement, the formula
shown below will be applied:

sample of number
order natural reverse in pairs Y
order natural in pairs Y
=
=
=
=
n
Q
P
Q P S
2
) 1 (
=
n n
S
^
t

X

Y

(X, Y) rankings
Y pairs in
natural order

Y pairs in reverse
natural order

1 1 (1, 1) 24 0
2 4 (2, 4) 21 2
3 11 (3, 11) 14 8
4 3 (4, 3) 20 1
5 5 (5, 5) 19 1
6 22 (6, 22) 3 16
7 20 (7, 20) 4 14
8 8 (8, 8) 14 3
9 2 (9, 2) 16 0
10 21 (10, 21) 3 12
11 10 (11, 10) 11 3
12 12 (12, 12) 10 3
13 13 (13, 13) 9 3
Arrangement of data for computing (Table 9.7)

X

Y

(X, Y) rankings
Y pairs in
natural order

Y pairs in reverse
natural order

14 15 (14,15) 7 4
15 9 (15, 9) 8 2
16 6 (16,6) 9 0
17 7 (17, 7) 8 0
18 9 (18, 9) 3 4
19 6 (19, 6) 5 1
20 18 (20, 18) 3 2
21 14 (21, 14) 4 0
22 25 (22, 25) 0 3
23 17 (23, 17) 2 0
24 23 (24, 23) 1 0
25 24 (25, 24) 0 0
P = 218 Q = 82
From the calculation :
P=218, Q=82, n=25
S = P Q
= 218 82
= 136

The test statistic,

453 . 0
2
) 24 ( 25
136
^
= = t
3) DECISION

Test statistic,

From table A.22 with n=25 and =0.005
critical value,

Since

So, we reject H0.

453 . 0
^
= t
367 . 0 *
005 . 0
= t
005 . 0
^
* t > t
4) CONCLUSION

There is enough evidence to support the claim that
there is direct relationship between benchmark
achievement and management ranking in the
population.
EXAMPLE-TIES
Krippner* reported the data shown in Table 9.9 on
30 children(26 boys,4 girls) who attended a
summer reading clinic sponsored by a university
child-study center. The data were generated as
part of an investigation to determine which of the
several variables appear to be related to reading
improvement manifested in a remedial program. We
wish to compute from these data and test the
null-hypothesis that there is no association
between IQ and reading improvement,let .
*Krippner, Stanley, Correlates of Reading Improvement, J.Devel. Reading, 7 (1963)
29-39.
1 . 0 = o

Data on 30 subjects enrolled in a 5-week summer reading clinic

Table 9.9
Client Improvement(X) WISC IQ full
scale(Y)
Alvin 0.6 86
Barry 0.2 107
Chester 1.6 102
Dick 0.5 104
Earl 0.9 104
Floyd 0.5 89
Gregg 0.8 109
Harry 0.8 109
Ivan 0.8 101
Jacob 0.4 96
Karl 1.8 113
Continue
Client Improvement(X) WISC IQ full
scale(Y)
Lewis 0.1 85
Marvin 0.9 100
Ned 0.2 94
Oscar 1.6 104
Peter 1.6 104
Quincy 0.0 98
Ralph 1.6 115
Rita 0.2 109
Simon 0.3 94
Tony 0.0 112
Uriah 1.0 96
Continue
Client Improvement(X) WISC IQ full
scale(Y)
Victor 1.3 113
Waldo 0.6 110
Walter 0.6 97
Wanda 0.5 107
Xavier 1.7 113
York 1.6 109
Yvonne 2.2 98
Zohra 1.5 106
1) HYPOTHESES:

0)(claim) IQ( and t improvemen reading between ip relationsh inverse or direct is There :
t independen are IQ and t improvemen Reading
1
0
:
= t H
H
2) TEST STATISTIC:

Firstly we arrange the data based on the natural order
of X (ascending order).
Find the Y pairs in natural order and Y pairs in reverse
natural order based on their definition. After we get the
arrangement, we will get the value of P and Q to be
applied in formula shown below:
Continue
rank given a at tied are that ns observatio Y of no.
rank given a at tied are that ns observatio X of no.
) 1 (
2
1
), 1 (
2
1
) 1 (
2
1
) 1 (
2
1
=
=
= =

=

y
x
y y y x x x
y x
t
t
t t T t t T
T n n T n n
S

Arrangement of data for computing in Table 9.9 :

Improvement(X) IQ(Y) Y pairs in
natural order
Y pairs in
reverse
natural order
0.0 98 19 8
0.0 112 4 24
0.1 85 27 0
0.2 94 21 2
0.2 107 8 15
0.2 109 5 16
0.3 94 21 2
0.4 96 19 2
0.5 89 18 1
0.5 104 9 7
Continue

Improvement(X) IQ(Y) Y pairs in
natural order
Y pairs in
reverse natural
order
0.5 107 8 11
0.6 86 16 0
0.6 97 15 1
0.6 110 4 12
0.8 101 10 3
0.8 109 4 8
0.8 109 4 8
0.9 100 9 2
0.9 104 6 3
1.0 96 10 0
1.3 113 1 6
Continue
Improvement(X) IQ(Y) Y pairs in natural
order
Y pairs in
reverse natural
order
1.5 106 4 4
1.6 102 2 1
1.6 104 2 1
1.6 104 2 1
1.6 109 2 1
1.6 115 0 3
1.7 113 0 1
1.8 113 0 1
2.2 98 0 0
P=250 Q=144
Continue
2564 . 0
19
2
) 29 ( 30
24
2
) 29 ( 30
106
19
2
) 2 ( 3 ) 3 ( 4 ) 1 ( 2 ) 3 ( 4 ) 1 ( 2 ) 1 ( 2 ) 1 ( 2
T
24
2
) 4 ( 5 ) 1 ( 2 ) 2 ( 3 ) 2 ( 3 ) 2 ( 3 ) 2 ( 3 ) 1 ( 2
T
106 144 250 S
y
x
=

=
=
+ + + + + +
=
=
+ + + + + +
=
= =
3) DECISION

4) CONCLUSION

test). tail - ce(two significan of level 0.10 at the
H reject can we A.22, in table given 30 n for 0.218 * than
greater is 0.256 of value computed our Since
0 0.05
= = t
=
IQ. and
t improvemen reading between ip relationsh inverse or direct
is e that ther claim e support th to evidence enough is There
EXERCISE(NON-TIES)
Johnson* conducted a study to determine whether, in
collegiate schools of nursing, relationships bertween
certain variables could be identified. Two variables of
interest for which indixes were constucted were
extent of agreement (between the dean and the
faculty) on the responsibilities for decision making and
faculty satisfaction. The ranks on the two variables
of the 12 institutions that participated in the study are
shown in Table 9.11. The author computed a value of
rs =-0.336 from the data, which she declared not
significant. Compute from the data and test
significance against the alternative that < 0.
*Johnson, Betty M.,Decision Making, Faculty Satisfaction, and The Place of the
School of Nursing in the University, Nursing Res.,22(1973),100-107.

t
Table 9.11

School Rank on faculty
satisfaction
Rank on
decision-making
agreement
A
1 12
B
7 11
C
6 10
D
2 9
E
8 8
F
4 7
G
10 6
H
12 5
I
11 4
J
5 3
K
9 2
L
3 1
EXERCISE(TIES)
Pierce* points out that is most investigations of
lightning discharges to earth, the estimated quantity of
electricity passing from the cloud to the ground is
around 20 to 30 coulombs. However, Pierce cites the
data of Meese and Evans*, who reported much larger
values. Their data as reported by Pierce are shown in
table 9.13, along with the distance of the observing site
of the discharge. Pierce computes a Pearson product-
moment correlation coefficient of r=0.877 and a P value
of 0.01. Compute and the corresponding P value for
Hi : > 0.
*Pierce, E.T.,The Charge Transferred to Earth by a lightning Flash, J.Franklin
Inst.,286 (1968), 353-354
*Meese,A.D., and W.H.Evans.Charge Transfer in the Lightning Stroke as
Determined by the Magnetograph,J.Franklin Inst.,273(1963),375-382.
t
Table 9.13

Distance, kilometres Charge, coulombs
6 23
6 46
6 46
6 47
6 94
7 80
9 133
10 81
10 114
10 274
11 260
12 378
15 197
15 234
18 1035
23 1065
EXERCISE(LARGE SAMPLE)
Cravens and Woodruff * conducted a study to design and
test a methodology for analytically determining standards of
sales performance. They reported the data on benchmark
achievement and management rating for 41 sales territories
shown in the table 9.14. They computed benchmark
achievement as being sales volume divided by benchmark
sales, and based management ratings on salesperson
motivation and effort.
We wish to compute for these data to see whether there is
sufficient evidence to conclude that benchmark achievement
and management rating are directly related. Although the
data are reported as ranks, we follow the same procedure in
computing as we would if the data were reported in
absolute quantities.

*Cravens, David W., and Robert B. Woodruff, An Approach for Determining
Criteria ofSales Perfomance,J. Appl. Psychol., 57 (1973), 242-247.

Table 9.14

Territory Benchmark
achievement
(X)
Management
rating (Y)
Territory

Benchmark
achievement
(X)

Management
rating (Y)

1 2 4 14 11 10
2 9 2 15 1 1
3 7 20 16 21 14
4 23 17 17 14 15
5 5 5 18 3 11
6 17 7 19 13 13
7 16 6 20 18 19
8 25 24 21 22 25
9 4 3 22 19 16
10 10 21 23 24 23
11 20 18 24 6 22
12 15 9 25 12 12
13 8 8 26 28 34
Continue
Territory Benchmark
achievement
(X)
Management
rating (Y)
Territory

Benchmark
achievement
(X)

Management
rating (Y)

27 30 41 35 32 30
28 26 38 36 39 33
29 29 36 37 37 35
30 27 32 38 36 37
31 33 29 39 41 39
32 35 31 40 38 40
33 31 26 41 40 27
34 34 28
TABLE
A.22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT18FbqDqTc&
feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K289f4S75Bg&
feature=youtu.be