ABSTRACT There are several statistical hypothesis tests available for assessing normality assumptions, which is an a priori requirement for most parametric statistical procedures. The usual method for comparing the performances of normality tests is to use Monte Carlo simulations to obtain point estimates for the corresponding powers. The aim of this work is to improve the assessment of 9 normality hypothesis tests. For that purpose, random samples were drawn from several symmetric and asymmetric nonnormal distributions and Monte Carlo simulations were carried out to compute confidence intervals for the power achieved, for each distribution, by two of the most usual normality tests, Kolmogorov–Smirnov with Lilliefors correction and Shapiro–Wilk. In addition, the specificity was computed for each test, again resorting to Monte Carlo simulations, taking samples from standard normal distributions. The analysis was then additionally extended to the Anderson–Darling, Cramer-Von Mises, Pearson chi-square Shapiro–Francia, Jarque–Bera, D'Agostino and uncorrected Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests by determining confidence intervals for the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Simulations were performed to this end, wherein for each sample from a nonnormal distribution an equal-sized sample was taken from a normal distribution. The Shapiro–Wilk test was seen to have the best global performance overall, though in some circumstances the Shapiro–Francia or the D'Agostino tests offered better results. The differences between the tests were not as clear for smaller sample sizes. Also to be noted, the SW and KS tests performed generally quite poorly in distinguishing between samples drawn from normal distributions and t Student distributions.
[1]
S. Shapiro,et al.
An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)
,
1965
.
[2]
Anil K. Bera,et al.
Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals
,
1980
.
[3]
N. Henze,et al.
Recent and classical tests for normality - a comparative study
,
1989
.
[4]
Anil K. Bera,et al.
Efficient tests for normality, homoscedasticity and serial independence of regression residuals: Monte Carlo Evidence
,
1981
.
[5]
Niall M. Adams,et al.
Improving the Practice of Classifier Performance Assessment
,
2000,
Neural Computation.
[6]
Y. B. Wah,et al.
Power comparisons of Shapiro-Wilk , Kolmogorov-Smirnov , Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests
,
2011
.
[7]
L. Shenton,et al.
Omnibus test contours for departures from normality based on √b1 and b2
,
1975
.
[8]
B. Yazici,et al.
A comparison of various tests of normality
,
2007
.
[9]
A. Dyer.
Comparisons of tests for normality with a cautionary note
,
1974
.
[10]
B. W. Yap,et al.
Comparisons of various types of normality tests
,
2011
.
[11]
S. Shapiro,et al.
A Comparative Study of Various Tests for Normality
,
1968
.
[12]
Jean-Marie Dufour,et al.
Simulation�?Based Finite Sample Normality Tests in Linear Regressions
,
1998
.
[13]
P. Royston.
A Remark on Algorithm as 181: The W‐Test for Normality
,
1995
.
[14]
H. Lilliefors.
On the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown
,
1967
.