Is "abnormality" a correct word in this context?

cigogne

Senior Member
Persian
Hi,

In a simulated driving, the researchers have examined the number of vehicle collisions with pedestrians as a variable. I want to say that this number is not normal. Is it right to use the word "abnormality"?

"Because of the abnormality of the number of collisions with pedestrians, the Kruskal-Wallis statistical test was used to determine the differences in the values of this variable among the three age groups, where the obtained P-value was 0.536."

Thanks!
 
  • lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    In order to understand "abnormality" the reader needs to know what "normal" is. If they certainly would, then it's fine. If not, it might be better to say, for example, because of the unexpectedly large number of collisions……
     

    cigogne

    Senior Member
    Persian
    There are different variables. Some of them are normal and some are not, depending on the obtained p-value.
     

    atokad

    Senior Member
    English - US
    No, the word "abnormality" is not used in this context. You could say "non-normality," but I think it would be better to rephrase it: "Because the number of collisions does not follow a normal distribution, the Kruskal-Wallis..."
     

    atokad

    Senior Member
    English - US
    I would use another word for abnormality
    try: deviation / irregularity / divergence / uncommonness
    cigogne is not talking about the ordinary meaning of "normal"; this is talking about a technical term from statistics. A normal distribution is a Gaussian distribution, aka a bell curve.
     

    Andygc

    Senior Member
    British English
    this is talking about a technical term from statistics. A normal distribution is a Gaussian distribution, aka a bell curve.
    But it isn't (talking about a technical term).
    There are different variables. Some of them are normal and some are not, depending on the obtained p-value.
    The p-value doesn't tell you if the distribution is normal, it tells you the probability of the findings being due to chance.

    cigone appears to be using "normal" wrongly.
     

    atokad

    Senior Member
    English - US
    Sure, I know what a p-value is, and the sentence "Some of them are normal and some are not, depending on the obtained p-value" doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but nevertheless, I think cigogne is talking about normal in the Gaussian sense. This is based on skimming the Wikipedia article about the Kruskal-Wallis test, which explains:
    "Since it is a non-parametric method, the Kruskal–Wallis test does not assume a normal distribution of the residuals, unlike the analogous one-way analysis of variance."

    But hey, I could be wrong. Only cigogne knows for sure.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top