Sign test overview

This page offers structured overviews of one or more selected methods. Add additional methods for comparisons (max. of 3) by clicking on the dropdown button in the right-hand column. To practice with a specific method click the button at the bottom row of the table

Sign test	Friedman test	Spearman's rho
Independent variable	Independent/grouping variable	Variable 1
2 paired groups	One within subject factor ($\geq 2$ related groups)	One of ordinal level
Dependent variable	Dependent variable	Variable 2
One of ordinal level	One of ordinal level	One of ordinal level
Null hypothesis	Null hypothesis	Null hypothesis
H₀: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) = P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair) If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as: H₀: the population median of the difference scores is equal to zero A difference score is the difference between the first score of a pair and the second score of a pair.	H₀: the population scores in any of the related groups are not systematically higher or lower than the population scores in any of the other related groups Usually the related groups are the different measurement points. Several different formulations of the null hypothesis can be found in the literature, and we do not agree with all of them. Make sure you (also) learn the one that is given in your text book or by your teacher.	H₀: $\rho_s = 0$ Here $\rho_s$ is the Spearman correlation in the population. The Spearman correlation is a measure for the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between two variables of at least ordinal measurement level. In words, the null hypothesis would be: H₀: there is no monotonic relationship between the two variables in the population.
Alternative hypothesis	Alternative hypothesis	Alternative hypothesis
H₁ two sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) $\neq$ P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair) H₁ right sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) > P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair) H₁ left sided: P(first score of a pair exceeds second score of a pair) < P(second score of a pair exceeds first score of a pair) If the dependent variable is measured on a continuous scale, this can also be formulated as: H₁ two sided: the population median of the difference scores is different from zero H₁ right sided: the population median of the difference scores is larger than zero H₁ left sided: the population median of the difference scores is smaller than zero	H₁: the population scores in some of the related groups are systematically higher or lower than the population scores in other related groups	H₁ two sided: $\rho_s \neq 0$ H₁ right sided: $\rho_s > 0$ H₁ left sided: $\rho_s < 0$
Assumptions	Assumptions	Assumptions
Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another	Sample of 'blocks' (usually the subjects) is a simple random sample from the population. That is, blocks are independent of one another	Sample of pairs is a simple random sample from the population of pairs. That is, pairs are independent of one another Note: this assumption is only important for the significance test, not for the correlation coefficient itself. The correlation coefficient itself just measures the strength of the monotonic relationship between two variables.
Test statistic	Test statistic	Test statistic
$W = $ number of difference scores that is larger than 0	$Q = \dfrac{12}{N \times k(k + 1)} \sum R^2_i - 3 \times N(k + 1)$ Here $N$ is the number of 'blocks' (usually the subjects - so if you have 4 repeated measurements for 60 subjects, $N$ equals 60), $k$ is the number of related groups (usually the number of repeated measurements), and $R_i$ is the sum of ranks in group $i$. Remember that multiplication precedes addition, so first compute $\frac{12}{N \times k(k + 1)} \times \sum R^2_i$ and then subtract $3 \times N(k + 1)$. Note: if ties are present in the data, the formula for $Q$ is more complicated.	$t = \dfrac{r_s \times \sqrt{N - 2}}{\sqrt{1 - r_s^2}} $ Here $r_s$ is the sample Spearman correlation and $N$ is the sample size. The sample Spearman correlation $r_s$ is equal to the Pearson correlation applied to the rank scores.
Sampling distribution of $W$ if H₀ were true	Sampling distribution of $Q$ if H₀ were true	Sampling distribution of $t$ if H₀ were true
The exact distribution of $W$ under the null hypothesis is the Binomial($n$, $P$) distribution, with $n =$ number of positive differences $+$ number of negative differences, and $P = 0.5$. If $n$ is large, $W$ is approximately normally distributed under the null hypothesis, with mean $nP = n \times 0.5$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{nP(1-P)} = \sqrt{n \times 0.5(1 - 0.5)}$. Hence, if $n$ is large, the standardized test statistic $$z = \frac{W - n \times 0.5}{\sqrt{n \times 0.5(1 - 0.5)}}$$ follows approximately the standard normal distribution if the null hypothesis were true.	If the number of blocks $N$ is large, approximately the chi-squared distribution with $k - 1$ degrees of freedom. For small samples, the exact distribution of $Q$ should be used.	Approximately the $t$ distribution with $N - 2$ degrees of freedom
Significant?	Significant?	Significant?
If $n$ is small, the table for the binomial distribution should be used: Two sided: Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Right sided: Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Left sided: Check if $W$ observed in sample is in the rejection region or Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $W$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ If $n$ is large, the table for standard normal probabilities can be used: Two sided: Check if $z$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $z^$ or Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Right sided: Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $z^$ or Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Left sided: Check if $z$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $z^*$ or Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $z$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$	If the number of blocks $N$ is large, the table with critical $X^2$ values can be used. If we denote $X^2 = Q$: Check if $X^2$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $X^{2*}$ or Find $p$ value corresponding to observed $X^2$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$	Two sided: Check if $t$ observed in sample is at least as extreme as critical value $t^$ or Find two sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Right sided: Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or larger than critical value $t^$ or Find right sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$ Left sided: Check if $t$ observed in sample is equal to or smaller than critical value $t^*$ or Find left sided $p$ value corresponding to observed $t$ and check if it is equal to or smaller than $\alpha$
Equivalent to	n.a.	n.a.
Two sided sign test is equivalent to McNemar's test: $W = b$, and $z^2 = X^2$ Friedman test with two related groups	-	-
Example context	Example context	Example context
Do people tend to score higher on mental health after a mindfulness course?	Is there a difference in depression level between measurement point 1 (pre-intervention), measurement point 2 (1 week post-intervention), and measurement point 3 (6 weeks post-intervention)?	Is there a monotonic relationship between physical health and mental health?
SPSS	SPSS	SPSS
Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > 2 Related Samples... Put the two paired variables in the boxes below Variable 1 and Variable 2 Under Test Type, select the Sign test	Analyze > Nonparametric Tests > Legacy Dialogs > K Related Samples... Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the white box below Test Variables Under Test Type, select the Friedman test	Analyze > Correlate > Bivariate... Put your two variables in the box below Variables Under Correlation Coefficients, select Spearman
Jamovi	Jamovi	Jamovi
Jamovi does not have a specific option for the sign test. However, you can do the Friedman test instead. The $p$ value resulting from this Friedman test is equivalent to the two sided $p$ value that would have resulted from the sign test. Go to: ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA - Friedman Put the two paired variables in the box below Measures	ANOVA > Repeated Measures ANOVA - Friedman Put the $k$ variables containing the scores for the $k$ related groups in the box below Measures	Regression > Correlation Matrix Put your two variables in the white box at the right Under Correlation Coefficients, select Spearman Under Hypothesis, select your alternative hypothesis
Practice questions	Practice questions	Practice questions

Sign test - overview