"Comparison
of Broad Statistical tools Across Key Attributes"
Sujai balasubramaniam
|
Sr. No. |
Statistical Tool |
Purpose |
Data Type |
Complexity Level |
Typical Applications |
Ease of Use |
Strengths |
Limitations |
|
1 |
Descriptive Statistics |
Summarize data |
Quantitative |
Low |
Data reporting, exploratory analysis |
High |
Easy to interpret, provides quick insights |
No analysis of relationships |
|
2 |
Correlation Analysis |
Assess variable relationships |
Quantitative |
Low to Medium |
Quality control, customer behaviour analysis |
High |
Indicates strength and direction of association |
No causal implication |
|
3 |
Hypothesis Testing |
Test significance of findings |
Quantitative |
Low to Medium |
Quality assurance, experimental validation |
High |
Provides scientific validation |
Prone to Type I/II errors |
|
4 |
T-Test |
Compare means of two groups |
Quantitative |
Low |
A/B testing, experiments |
High |
Common, simple, and interpretable |
Only for two-group comparison |
|
5 |
Chi-Square Test |
Test associations in categories |
Categorical |
Low to Medium |
Demographics, behavior analysis |
High |
Ideal for nominal or categorical data |
Needs large sample sizes |
|
6 |
ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) |
Compare multiple groups means |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Clinical trials, product testing |
Medium |
Tests group differences effectively |
Sensitive to normality assumption |
|
7 |
Regression Analysis |
Predict relationships |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Risk modeling, trend analysis |
Medium |
Shows predictive relationships |
Limited by non-linear patterns |
|
8 |
Factor Analysis |
Data reduction, uncover patterns |
Quantitative |
High |
Survey data, psychological research |
Medium |
Reveals hidden structure among variables |
Complex, subjective interpretation |
|
|
Principal Component Analysis
(PCA) |
Reduce dimensionality |
Quantitative |
High |
Image compression, exploratory data analysis |
Medium |
Reduces redundancy, highlights key features |
Difficult to interpret |
|
Sr. No. |
Statistical Tool |
Purpose |
Data Type |
Complexity Level |
Typical Applications |
Ease of Use |
Strengths |
Limitations |
|
10 |
Control Charts |
Monitor process stability |
Quantitative |
Low |
Manufacturing, quality control |
High |
Visualizes process changes over time |
Assumes stable process |
|
11 |
Kaplan-Meier Estimator |
Estimate survival probability |
Quantitative |
Low |
Medical research, customer retention |
High |
Visualizes survival function |
Limited for complex time-dependent variables |
|
12 |
Log Rank Test |
Compare survival curves |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Medical research, reliability testing |
Medium |
Effective for time-to-event data |
Assumes proportional hazards |
|
13 |
Time Series Analysis |
Analyse data over time |
Quantitative |
High |
Economic forecasting, sales trends |
Medium |
Captures seasonal and trend patterns |
Requires continuous data |
|
14 |
Canonical Correlation Analysis
(CCA) |
Assess multivariable relationships |
Quantitative |
High |
Environmental studies, genomics |
Low to Medium |
Analyses complex, multiple-variable relationships |
Computationally intensive |
|
15 |
Conjoint Analysis |
Assess consumer preferences |
Categorical |
Medium |
Marketing, product design |
Medium |
Reveals preferences, useful for market segmentation |
Complex survey design |
|
16 |
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) |
Visualize similarity of data points |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Market research, perceptual mapping |
Medium |
Useful for visualizing high-dimensional data |
Limited interpretability |
|
17 |
Cluster Analysis |
Group data points |
Quantitative |
Medium to High |
Market segmentation, genetics |
Medium |
Identifies natural clusters or segments |
Sensitive to outliers and scaling |
|
|
Kruskal-Wallis Test |
Non-parametric comparison of groups |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Non-parametric studies, ordinal data |
High |
Useful when normality assumptions aren’t met |
Sensitive to tied ranks |
|
Sr. No. |
Statistical Tool |
Purpose |
Data Type |
Complexity Level |
Typical Applications |
Ease of Use |
Strengths |
Limitations |
|
19 |
Canonical Correspondence
Analysis (CCA) |
Ecological multivariate analysis |
Quantitative |
High |
Ecology, environmental studies |
Medium |
Handles multiple response variables |
Computationally intensive |
|
20 |
Partial Least Squares
Regression (PLS) |
Reduce predictors |
Quantitative |
High |
Chemometrics, genomics |
Medium |
Handles multicollinearity, suitable for small samples |
Interpretation can be complex |
|
21 |
Multivariate Analysis of
Variance (MANOVA) |
Compare multiple dependent variables |
Quantitative |
High |
Experimental design, psychology |
Low |
Analyses multiple outcome variables |
Requires balanced data |
|
22 |
Gage R&R |
Assess measurement consistency |
Quantitative |
Low |
Manufacturing, quality control |
High |
Measures repeatability and reproducibility |
Limited to measurement system evaluation |
|
23 |
Survival Analysis |
Time-to-event modeling |
Quantitative |
Medium to High |
Medical survival studies, customer retention |
Medium |
Models timing effectively for life data |
Sensitive to censored data |
|
24 |
Decision Trees |
Visualize decision paths |
Mixed |
Medium |
Business intelligence, customer decisions |
High |
Easy to interpret, shows paths to decisions |
Prone to overfitting |
|
25 |
Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) |
Complex relationships analysis |
Quantitative |
High |
Behavioural science, market research |
Low |
Allows complex, multivariate relationships |
Requires large sample sizes |
|
26 |
Logistic Regression |
Predict binary outcomes |
Categorical |
Medium |
Medical diagnosis, fraud detection |
High |
Great for binary outcomes |
Limited to binary and linear outcomes |
|
Sr. No. |
Statistical Tool |
Purpose |
Data Type |
Complexity Level |
Typical Applications |
Ease of Use |
Strengths |
Limitations |
|
27 |
Bootstrap Resampling |
Estimate statistics with resampling |
Mixed |
Medium |
Small sample analysis, machine learning |
Medium |
No assumption of normality |
Computationally intensive |
|
28 |
Latent Class Analysis (LCA) |
Identify hidden subgroups |
Categorical |
High |
Psychometrics, marketing research |
Medium |
Useful for segmentation |
Requires large datasets |
|
29 |
Ridge Regression |
Handle multicollinearity in data |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Finance, predictive modeling |
Medium |
Addresses multicollinearity, prevents overfitting |
Less interpretable than linear regression |
|
30 |
Cox Proportional Hazards Model |
Assess hazard ratios over time |
Quantitative |
Medium to High |
Clinical trials, survival analysis |
Medium |
Handles censored data |
Assumes proportional hazards |
|
31 |
Entropy Analysis |
Measure randomness |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Information theory, machine learning |
Medium |
Quantifies uncertainty and information content |
Limited to categorical/ordinal data |
|
32 |
Lasso Regression |
Variable selection, regularization |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Feature selection, predictive analytics |
Medium |
Shrinks irrelevant coefficients to zero |
Can ignore useful variables |
|
33 |
Monte Carlo Simulation |
Model uncertainty |
Quantitative |
High |
Engineering, risk analysis |
Medium |
Model’s complex random processes |
Requires high computation |
|
34 |
K-Means Clustering |
Simple clustering |
Quantitative |
Medium |
Customer segmentation, basic clustering |
Medium |
Fast, effective for simple clustering |
Sensitive to initial clusters |
|
|
Generalized Additive Models
(GAM) |
Non-linear modeling |
Quantitative |
High |
Predictive analytics, medicine |
Medium |
Captures non-linear patterns |
Difficult to interpret |
|
Sr. No. |
Statistical Tool |
Purpose |
Data Type |
Complexity Level |
Typical Applications |
Ease of Use |
Strengths |
Limitations |
|
36 |
Mixed-Effects Models |
Account for fixed and random effects |
Quantitative |
High |
Longitudinal studies, multi-level data |
Low |
Handles nested data effectively |
Complex interpretation |
|
37 |
Hierarchical Bayes Estimation |
Multi-level parameter estimation |
Quantitative |
High |
Marketing, predictive modeling |
Low |
Provides parameter estimates at multiple levels |
Complex computation |
|
38 |
Support Vector Machines (SVM) |
Classification, regression |
Quantitative |
High |
Image recognition, text classification |
Low to Medium |
Effective for high-dimensional data |
Requires careful tuning |
|
39 |
Neural Networks |
Complex pattern recognition |
Mixed |
Very High |
Image recognition, deep learning |
Low |
Excels at capturing complex patterns |
Needs large datasets, complex interpretation |
|
40 |
Conditional Random Fields
(CRFs) |
Model structured predictions |
Mixed |
Very High |
NLP, sequence prediction |
Low |
Great for sequential, contextual data |
Requires large datasets, high computation |
No comments:
Post a Comment