Hi folks I am analysing some histogram data for hit detection assays on beads and am looking for comments about the analysis. To perform hypothesis or inference tests on the histogram data, I must somehow suggest (in a way that is at LEAST semi-quantitative) that my data correlates with a parametric distribution - eg normal, exponential, weibull, etc etc. I am well aware that a simple flow histogram is multivariate - ie the fluorescence response is probably based on several things including size, biomolecule desnity on the beads, etc etc. However, at large sample sizes, such data MUST approach some limiting distribution. However, I come up against the problem that my data looks great when plotted in a Quantile/quantile plot (against theoretical NORMAL quantiles) but will perform poorly in statistical tests for "normality" such as kolmogorov-smirnov and shapiro-wilkes tests. I always keep the sample size >500. Are such tests necessary for convincing people about the data? How about just reporting the p-values for the KS tests - certainly not >90%, but always between 10 and 100%. It seems that most people simply "assume" that the data "should" be somewhat normal and then go ahead and do t-tests, which will, I suppose, soak up some error, but still not quite sure how to convince myself that such methods are viable. If any statistically-minded people have some opinions, please let me know. I am keen to do this analysis properly and publish the findings - however good or bad they are ;) Regards Simon CorrieReceived on Tue Nov 29 13:58:00 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 14 2006 - 22:03:59 EST