Abstract:When the distributional assumptions for a t-test are not met, the default position of many analysts is to resort to a rank-based test, such as the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test to compare the difference in means between two samples. The Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test presents no danger of tied observations when the observations in the data are continuous. However, in practice, observations are discretized due various logical reasons, or the data are ordinal in nature. When ranks are tied, most textbooks recommend using mid-ranks to replace the tied ranks, a practice that affects the distribution of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test under the null hypothesis. Other methods for breaking ties have also been proposed. In this study, we examine four tie-breaking methods-average-scores, mid-ranks, jittering, and omission-for their effects on Type I and Type II error of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test and the two-sample t-test for various combinations of sample sizes, underlying population distributions, and percentages of tied observations. We use the results to determine the maximum percentage of ties for which the power and size are seriously affected, and for which method of tie-breaking results in the best Type I and Type II error properties. Not surprisingly, the underlying population distribution of the data has less of an effect on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test than on the t-test. Surprisingly, we find that the jittering and omission methods tend to hold Type I error at the nominal level, even for small sample sizes, with no substantial sacrifice in terms of Type II error. Furthermore, the t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test are equally effected by ties in terms of Type I and Type II error; therefore, we recommend omitting tied observations when they occur for both the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney due to the bias in Type I error that is created when tied observations are left in the data, in the case of the t-test, or adjusted using mid-ranks or average-scores, in the case of the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney.

Wilcoxon and t Test for Matched Pairs of Typed Subjects

A Comparative Review of Methods for Comparing Means Using Partially Paired Data

On Steel's Test with Ties

Case for omitting tied observations in the two-sample t-test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test

Optimal Sample Size Planning for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test

Optimal Weighted Two-Sample T-Test with Partially Paired Data in a Unified Framework

Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney or t-test? On assumptions for hypothesis tests and multiple interpretations of decision rules

A note on the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test and tied observations

[An aligned rank test for a nonparametric analysis of the two-way interaction]

Mistaken identities lead to missed opportunities: Testing for mean differences in partially matched data

Covariate Balance in Simple, Stratified and Clustered Comparative Studies

Testing Biased Randomization Assumptions and Quantifying Imperfect Matching and Residual Confounding in Matched Observational Studies

A comparison of recent approaches to the analysis of repeated measurements

Bridging the Gap Between Design and Analysis: Randomization Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Matched Observational Studies with Treatment Doses

The Pairwise Matching Design is Optimal under Extreme Noise and Assignments

Optimality of Matched-Pair Designs in Randomized Controlled Trials

The power of a paired t-test with a covariate

Ties in Paired-Comparison Experiments: A Generalization of the Bradley-Terry Model

New multivariate tests for assessing covariate balance in matched observational studies

Tests for equivalence based on odds ratio for matched-pair design

Hypothesis Test to Compare Two Paired Binomial Proportions: Assessment of 24 Methods