Abstract:Background: According to international guidelines, parametric methods must be chosen for RI construction when the sample size is small and the distribution is Gaussian. However, normality tests may not be accurate at small sample size. Objectives: The purpose of the study was to evaluate normality test performance to properly identify samples extracted from a Gaussian population at small sample sizes, and assess the consequences on RI accuracy of applying parametric methods to samples that falsely identified the parent population as Gaussian. Methods: Samples of n = 60 and n = 30 values were randomly selected 100 times from simulated Gaussian, lognormal, and asymmetric populations of 10,000 values. The sensitivity and specificity of 4 normality tests were compared. Reference intervals were calculated using 6 different statistical methods from samples that falsely identified the parent population as Gaussian, and their accuracy was compared. Results: Shapiro-Wilk and D'Agostino-Pearson tests were the best performing normality tests. However, their specificity was poor at sample size n = 30 (specificity for P < .05: .51 and .50, respectively). The best significance levels identified when n = 30 were 0.19 for Shapiro-Wilk test and 0.18 for D'Agostino-Pearson test. Using parametric methods on samples extracted from a lognormal population but falsely identified as Gaussian led to clinically relevant inaccuracies. Conclusions: At small sample size, normality tests may lead to erroneous use of parametric methods to build RI. Using nonparametric methods (or alternatively Box-Cox transformation) on all samples regardless of their distribution or adjusting, the significance level of normality tests depending on sample size would limit the risk of constructing inaccurate RI.

Comparative evaluation of goodness of fit tests for normal distribution using simulation and empirical data

A power comparison of various normality tests

Power analysis of several normality tests: A Monte Carlo simulation study

Detection of Non-Normality in Data Sets and Comparison between Different Normality Tests

A Goodness-of-fit Testing Approach for Normality Based on the Posterior Predictive Distribution

Comparison of Normality Tests in Terms of Sample Sizes under Different Skewness and Kurtosis Coefficients

Advice on testing the null hypothesis that a sample is drawn from a normal distribution

Comparison of selected tests for univariate normality based on measures of moments

Comparison of different goodness-of-fit tests

The Use of Posterior Predictive P-Values in Testing Goodness-Of-Fit

The Comparison among the Common Normality Tests for Numerical Variables

Evaluating the Three Methods of Goodness of Fit Test for Frequency Analysis

Sensitivity and specificity of normality tests and consequences on reference interval accuracy at small sample size: a computer-simulation study

Normality and significance testing in simple linear regression model for large sample sizes: a simulation study

Efficiency Comparison of the Statistical Tests for Multivariate Normal Distribution

Testing the goodness-of-fit of the stable distributions with applications to German stock index data and Bitcoin cryptocurrency data

Simulation Studies For Goodness-of-Fit and Two-Sample Methods For Univariate Data

Comparing Ratios of the Mean to a Power of Variance in Two Samples Via Self-Normalized Test Statistics

A New Procedure for Testing Normality Based on the L 2 Wasserstein Distance

Tests of fit for the power function lognormal distribution

Testing experimental data for univariate normality