↓ Skip to main content

Classifiers as a model-free group comparison test

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Classifiers as a model-free group comparison test
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, April 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0880-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bommae Kim, Timo von Oertzen

Abstract

The conventional statistical methods to detect group differences assume correct model specification, including the origin of difference. Researchers should be able to identify a source of group differences and choose a corresponding method. In this paper, we propose a new approach of group comparison without model specification using classification algorithms in machine learning. In this approach, the classification accuracy is evaluated against a binomial distribution using Independent Validation. As an application example, we examined false-positive errors and statistical power of support vector machines to detect group differences in comparison to conventional statistical tests such as t test, Levene's test, K-S test, Fisher's z-transformation, and MANOVA. The SVMs detected group differences regardless of their origins (mean, variance, distribution shape, and covariance), and showed comparably consistent power across conditions. When a group difference originated from a single source, the statistical power of SVMs was lower than the most appropriate conventional test of the study condition; however, the power of SVMs increased when differences originated from multiple sources. Moreover, SVMs showed substantially improved performance with more variables than with fewer variables. Most importantly, SVMs were applicable to any types of data without sophisticated model specification. This study demonstrates a new application of classification algorithms as an alternative or complement to the conventional group comparison test. With the proposed approach, researchers can test two-sample data even when they are not certain which statistical test to use or when data violates the statistical assumptions of conventional methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 25%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Lecturer 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 15%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Engineering 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 13 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#2,100
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,903
of 323,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#34
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.