A philosophical question? "Can't" or "shouldn't, because there
is no power or useful table of p-values"?
Pragmatically -- If I have a computer program for it, my program
will give SOME answer. The table of p-values must be a problem,
but it can return '0' for the sum of counts as a safe answer when
there's a doubt. I wonder how robust the Quick test is when the
data are discrete and (therefore) can have a tie at one end, while
the other end can be counted? Pragmatically, I don't know if the
test is robust against that assumption. Monte Carlo randomization
on all the data values could provide an ad-hoc assessment of p.
Assumptions?
The K-S rank test as a test for location has the ASSUMPTION that
the distributions are otherwise similar and differ by the location
parameter. When variances are vastly different, the KS test can
'reject' in either direction, depending on which end the counting
starts from.
No Power?
I've seen a lot of t-tests and contingency tables computed when
the power is virtually nil. For contingency tables and 'exact' tests,
the power for alpha= 0.05 might be exactly nil, for Ns too small.
I have told consultees, "You don't really have a test there, because
the N is too small."
> Is there some action
>advised if the test can't be applied?
Use a test with other assumptions?
--
Rich Ulrich
You are going to be a stickler about assumptions and the
table of p-values?