Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Articles / The Non-parametric Friedman Test

by Fred Schenkelberg 2 Comments

The Non-parametric Friedman Test

The Non-parametric Friedman Test

The Friedman test is a non-parametric test used to test for differences between groups when the dependent variable is at least ordinal (could be continuous). The Friedman test is the non-parametric alternative to the one-way ANOVA with repeated measures (or the complete block design and a special case of the Durbin test). If the data is significantly different than normally distributed this becomes the preferred test over using an ANOVA.

The test procedure ranks each row (block) together, then considers the values of ranks by columns. The data is organized in to a matrix with B rows (blocks) and T columns (treatments) with a single operation in each cell of the matrix.

Assumptions

As with nearly any statistical test, there are assumptions to consider. Here let’s illuminate four elements to consider:

  1. There is one group of test subjects that are measured on three or more different occasions.
  2. The group is a random sample from the population.
  3. The dependent variable is at least an ordinal or continuous (Likert scales, time, intelligent, percentage correct, etc.)
  4. The samples need not be normally distributed.

Setting up the Hypotheses

The null hypothesis is median treatment effects of the population are all the same. In short, the treatments have no effect.

The alternative hypothesis is the effects are not all the same. Indicating there is a discernible difference in treatment effects.

The data we’re dealing with reflects the situation where we want to compare T treatments with N subjects. The subjects are assigned randomly to the various groups. The comparison is within each group and not between groups.

The Test Statistic

The comparison is of the ranked results of the ordinal or continuous data, assigning a ranking value from 1, 2, to T for each of the B rows or treatments.

Since the null hypothesis is the treatments have no effect the rankings the sum of the ranking for each column (treatment) should all be equal.

The total sum of ranks is BT(T+1)/2, thus each treatment’s sum of ranks, if equal, should be relatively close to B(T+1)/2. Therefore the test statistic is a function of the sum of squares of deviations between treatment rank sums (R1, R2, …, RT) and the expected B(T+1)/2 value.

The test statistic, S, is

$$ \displaystyle\large S=\sum\limits_{t=1}^{T}{R_{t}^{2}-\frac{{{B}^{2}}T{{\left( T+1 \right)}^{2}}}{4}}$$

The Critical Value

Now we need to compare the test statistic to the critical value to determine the deviation are deviating enough to conclude that treatments are not all equal. Here software comes in handy, like Minitab, R, or some other package the has the tables built-in.

Here is an excepted table for three or four treatments. If your experiment has more treatments or a large sample size you could approximate the critical value using a chi-squared distribution (more on that another time).

For T = 3 for various significance values

N α <.10 α ≤.05 α <.01
3 6.00 6.00 —
4 6.00 6.50 8.00
5 5.20 6.40 8.40
6 5.33 7.00 9.00
7 5.43 7.14 8.86
8 5.25 6.25 9.00
9 5.56 6.22 8.67
10 5.00 6.20 9.60
11 4.91 6.54 8.91
12 5.17 6.17 8.67
13 4.77 6.00 9.39
∞ 4.61 5.99 9.21

k=4 for various significance values

N α <.10 α ≤.05 α <.01
2 6.00 6.00 —
3 6.60 7.40 8.60
4 6.30 7.80 9.60
5 6.36 7.80 9.96
6 6.40 7.60 10.00
7 6.26 7.80 10.37
8 6.30 7.50 10.35
∞ 6.25 7.82 11.34

Conclusion

If the test statistic value, S, is larger than the critical value found in the table then we reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is convincing evidence that the treatments are different.

Filed Under: Articles, CRE Preparation Notes, Probability and Statistics for Reliability Tagged With: Statistics non-parametric

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Coaching Works
Cyclone Separators — an overview »

Comments

  1. Satvik Singh says

    April 2, 2020 at 9:20 AM

    Hi
    Can you tell me what is the critical value if N=200 and K=3 for a significance level of 5%?

    Reply
    • Fred Schenkelberg says

      April 2, 2020 at 12:37 PM

      Sure, just use the values along the row for infinity – greater than N = 13. cheers, Fred

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

[popup type="" link_text="Get Weekly Email Updates" link_class="button" ][display_form id=266][/popup]

  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy