Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890669›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

Assessing the robustness of normality tests under varying skewness and kurtosis: a practical checklist for public health researchers.

Asha Kamath, Satyanarayana Poojari, K Varsha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Asha KamathDepartment of Applied Statistics and Data Science, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India.
Satyanarayana PoojariDepartment of Applied Statistics and Data Science, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India. satya.narayana@manipal.edu.
K VarshaDepartment of Applied Statistics and Data Science, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany statistical methods used in public health research, namely t-tests, ANOVA correlation and regression, rely on the assumption of normality. Violation of the normality assumption can severely lead to biased parameter estimates, reduced test power, and impact the reliability and validity of the findings, impacting the real-world evidence. An attempt to provide guidelines for choice of appropriate tests for assessment in public health data analytics is being made in this article.

methodsThis study aims to compare the performance of 13 commonly available normality tests in various software's, namely Shapiro-Wilk, Shapiro-Francia (Regression-Based tests), Lilliefors, Cramer Von Mises, Anderson-Darling (Empirical distribution-based test), Jarque-Bera, Adjusted Jarque Bera Test, Robust Jarque-Bera, D'Agostino & Pearson, D'Agostino Skewness, D'Agostino Kurtosis, Gel Miao Gastwirth (Moment-Based test), and Pearson Chi-Square (Chi-square-based test). These tests were evaluated based on empirical Type I error and power across varying sample sizes, skewness, and kurtosis using Monte Carlo simulations with non-normal data generated via the Fleishman method, reflecting slight to significant deviations in terms of skewness and kurtosis.

resultsFor moderately skewed data with low kurtosis, the D'Agostino Skewness and Shapiro-Wilk tests perform better across all sample sizes while Robust and Adjusted Jarque-Bera tests are preferable at higher kurtosis. In highly skewed data, Shapiro-Wilk is most effective, with Shapiro-Francia and Anderson-Darling improving with larger samples. For symmetric data, RJB and GMG are robust choices, with GMG preferred at higher kurtosis. Findings from two real-world datasets also support the simulation results.

conclusionPerformance of Normality tests are significantly influenced by sample size, skewness, and kurtosis. The findings of this study contribute to improving statistical practices in public health research by providing a practical, evidence-based checklist for selecting appropriate normality tests based on these key sample characteristics.

Indexed as

ChecklistPublic HealthData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSoftwareNormalityPowerSample sizeSkewness and KurtosisType 1 error rate

Identifiers

PMID40890669
PMCPMC12403259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.