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.

What should be the measure of conformity to normal distribution (normality) test in Likert type digital and face-to-face survey data?

Data Distribution: Normal or Abnormal?

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

Testing experimental data for univariate normality

A power comparison of various normality tests

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

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

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

Testing for normality: a user's (cautionary) guide

More about the basic assumptions of t-test: normality and sample size

On testing the skew normal distribution by using Shapiro–Wilk test

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

Checking normality of model errors under additive distortion measurement errors

Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation

Type I Error Rate and Power of Three Normality Tests

Skewness and kurtosis as criteria of normality in observed frequency distributions

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

Testing normality using the summary statistics with application to meta-analysis

Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data

Informal versus formal judgment of statistical models: The case of normality assumptions