Statistical Science

Randomization-Based Tests for “No Treatment Effects”

EunYi Chung

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

Although both Fisher’s and Neyman’s tests are for testing “no treatment effects,” they both test fundamentally different null hypotheses. While Neyman’s null concerns the average casual effect, Fisher’s null focuses on the individual causal effect. When conducting a test, researchers need to understand what is really being tested and what underlying assumptions are being made. If these fundamental issues are not fully appreciated, dubious conclusions regarding causal effects can be made.

Article information

Source
Statist. Sci., Volume 32, Number 3 (2017), 349-351.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 1 September 2017

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1504253118

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/16-STS590

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3695997

Keywords
Fisher’s randomization test Neyman’s randomization test treatment effect Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney rank sum test

Citation

Chung, EunYi. Randomization-Based Tests for “No Treatment Effects”. Statist. Sci. 32 (2017), no. 3, 349--351. doi:10.1214/16-STS590. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1504253118


Export citation

References

  • Chung, E. and Romano, J. P. (2013). Exact and asymptotically robust permutation tests. Ann. Statist. 41 484–507.
  • Chung, E. and Romano, J. P. (2016). Asymptotically valid and exact permutation tests based on two-sample $U$-statistics. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 168 97–105.
  • Romano, J. P. (1990). On the behavior of randomization tests without a group invariance assumption. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85 686–692.

See also

  • Main article: A Paradox from Randomization-Based Causal Inference.