Talk:Wald test

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Mathematics High‑priority Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

What exactly is the null hypothesis in the Wald Test? First para:"it tests whether an independent variable has a statistically significant relationship with a dependent variable."

Is it then testing the NH that X and Y are independent variables? If not, just say that. The way it is written is crap. I've changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.225.228 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too knowledgeable on this topic, so just commenting based on a "user"s perspective...I would appreciate if it said in the section on tests on multiple parameters what the variable "n" signifies. I guess it's usually sample size, but good to be explicit in maths.152.19.16.49 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO I think this article would benefit if it developed the Wald test in the way it is typically used i.e. as a test of whether some linear transformation of the parameter vector is equal to the zero vector, with perhaps an example and comments on how it is frequently used as a large-sample test - that is, the version of the test that is usually written in matrix notation. I would, but I'm not sure I'm qualified enough to do a reasonable job.--Theodds (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we move it to Wald's test for consistency with his other articles and grammatical correctness?--Adoniscik (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually referred to as a "Wald test" in statistical practice - at least in my discipline, which is medical statistics. --Pstevens (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Wald's test" in my dictionary of statistics (Everitt). Melcombe (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the previous editor for improving the flow of the text. I've just changed the first section a little because the Wald test is not only for dichotomous variables ^[1]. I've mentioned continuous variables specifically. I haven't (yet) put anything about categorical variables being handled via multiple dummy variables because the page doesn't yet describe the Wald test on multiple variables. I'll come back to this when I have more time.--Pstevens 11:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I haven't caused offence by reverting the edits by 134.48.244.232. In fact there are many hypotheses that can be tested by a Wald test, because it is a very general test procedure for parametric models. --Pstevens (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of generality, it would be nice if there were some discussion of generalized (>1df) Wald tests.

I modified the Alternatives section to remove the reference to confidence intervals. You could construct confidence intervals based on either a Wald or LRT statistic, so the confidence interval is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.139.32 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]