Mann-Whitney U Test: p=1.0 - Should I Report z = 0.0001?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nobahar
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
In a discussion about the Mann-Whitney U test, a user reported obtaining z = 0 and p = 1.0, questioning whether to instead report z = 0.0001 and p = 0.99. Participants suggested that the issue might stem from how data was entered into SPSS, with one advising to transpose the data for better results. There was concern that rounding in SPSS could affect the reported p-value, as it typically uses a significance threshold of 2.2. The consensus leaned towards the idea that simply reporting p = 0.99 might not adequately address the underlying issue. Accurate data entry and understanding SPSS's handling of calculations were emphasized as critical for resolving the discrepancies.
nobahar
Messages
482
Reaction score
2
Hey everyone,
I got z = 0, and therefore p = 1.0 in a Mann-Whitney U test. Considering this is impossible, should I instead report z = 0.0001 and p = 0.99?
Also, I have a different number of participants in my two conditions, I ran a parametric independent samples t-test, does anyone know if SPSS (the program I used) corrects for this?
Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think SPSS sorts for that.

How have you entered your data in SPSS, since that might sometimes do the trick. You might just have entered it the wrong way. Try to transpose your data and see what SPSS then comes up with if you do the same...
 
Thanks for the reply sander.
I can’t remember how I entered it into SPSS as it was awhile ago now. I 'remember' (for what episodic memory is worth!) making several attempts. I normally do. I also did the calculations by hand (as was standard unless there was a lot of participants, in which case its far to laborious and more prone to errors). If I recall, it came close to z=0, but wasn't quite so; would this make sense? I'm pretty sure SPSS simply took it to be z=0, when it clearly couldn't have been.
I think I resolved to put P=0.99 on the assignment.
 
nobahar said:
Thanks for the reply sander.
I can’t remember how I entered it into SPSS as it was awhile ago now. I 'remember' (for what episodic memory is worth!) making several attempts. I normally do. I also did the calculations by hand (as was standard unless there was a lot of participants, in which case its far to laborious and more prone to errors). If I recall, it came close to z=0, but wasn't quite so; would this make sense? I'm pretty sure SPSS simply took it to be z=0, when it clearly couldn't have been.
I think I resolved to put P=0.99 on the assignment.

Hmmm now that's odd. SPSS is some weird stuff, it works just totally against your instincts.

I think resolving the problem by saying p=0.99 doesn't solve the problem...

It might be that your data is rounded, which might just make the difference between 0.99 and 1.00. SPSS usually uses 2.2 significance. (ie 12.34 -> 12.3456 will become 1.36).
 
I'm taking a look at intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL). Basically it exclude Double Negation Elimination (DNE) from the set of axiom schemas replacing it with Ex falso quodlibet: ⊥ → p for any proposition p (including both atomic and composite propositions). In IPL, for instance, the Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) p ∨ ¬p is no longer a theorem. My question: aside from the logic formal perspective, is IPL supposed to model/address some specific "kind of world" ? Thanks.
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...

Similar threads

Back
Top