Parametric vs. Non-Parametric Tests in Clinical Research: When, Why, and How

📘 Parametric vs Non-Parametric: What's Realer?

In clinical epidemiology and biostatistics, selecting the appropriate statistical test depends not only on the study design and data type but also on the distributional characteristics of the data. Two major families of statistical tests—parametric and non-parametric—are used to analyze quantitative outcomes. The choice between them isn’t merely technical—it directly affects the robustness and interpretability of your clinical findings.

• Parametric tests are more powerful if their assumptions hold—primarily normality, equal variances, and interval/ratio scale. They provide interpretable estimates, such as means and standard deviations. This is ideal for clinical metrics such as blood pressure, weight loss, or lab values that are approximately symmetric and continuous.

• Non-parametric tests are more flexible—they don’t care about normality or equal variance. They work directly on ranks or signs, not raw values. That’s why they are called “distribution-free.” Non-parametric doesn't model reality better—it just protects you from violations of assumptions.
  

---

🔍 Definitions and Conceptual Foundations

Parametric Tests assume the data come from a specific distribution—usually the normal (Gaussian) distribution. These tests estimate population parameters (means, variances) and use these estimates to make inferences.

Non-Parametric Tests make no assumptions about the shape of the data distribution. They operate on ranks or signs, offering a distribution-free alternative that is more robust to outliers and skewed data.

---

📊 When to Use Each: Decision Logic Table

Criterion	Parametric	Non-Parametric
Assumes Normality	✅ Yes	❌ No
Scale of Data	Interval/Ratio	Ordinal/Non-normal Interval
Example Tests	t-test, ANOVA, Linear Regression	Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis
Output	Mean, SD, Coefficients	Median, Rank Differences
Sample Size Needed	Smaller samples work if normality holds	Better for small or skewed samples
Power	Higher if assumptions met	Lower, but safer under violations

---

🧪 Common Normality Checks Before Parametric Use

• Visual: Q-Q Plot, Histogram

• Statistical: Shapiro-Wilk test (n < 50), Kolmogorov-Smirnov (historical)

• Descriptive: Skewness, Kurtosis values

Clinical Best Practice: Focus on residuals in regression—not raw data. For group comparisons (especially in RCTs with n > 30), the Central Limit Theorem often neutralizes skewness concerns.

---

🎓 Examples from Clinical Trials

Task	Best Practice
Baseline comparison in RCT	Use means or medians descriptively; no hypothesis testing needed
Small n comparison (<20)	Check normality visually; use Shapiro-Wilk; consider Wilcoxon if severely skewed
Regression modeling	Always assess residuals; parametric valid if residuals ≈ normal
Ordinal scales (e.g., pain scores)	Prefer non-parametric tests

---

🧠 Secret Insight: What’s more real?

• Parametric is statistically ideal—if your data obeys the rules (or is transformed well).

• Non-parametric is robust to reality—especially when data is:

  • Ordinal (like pain scores)

  • Small samples (<20)

  • Skewed (like length of stay)

  • Has outliers

But don’t confuse “distribution-free” with “truth-based.” Non-parametric doesn't model reality better—it just protects you from violations of assumptions.

---

🔍 In Regression: Focus on Residuals, Not Raw Data

This is crucial:

• The normality assumption in regression isn't about the predictors or outcome.

• It’s about the residuals (errors). If they’re roughly normal, parametric regression is valid—even if your raw data is skewed.

---

⚠️ Pitfalls to Avoid

• Mechanical Normality Testing: Especially with large n, minor deviations yield p < 0.05 but don’t invalidate t-tests.

• Overusing Non-Parametric Tests: You lose power and interpretability (e.g., mean differences).

• Confusing Raw Data vs. Residual Normality: In regression, residuals should be checked, not the original variables.
  

---

✅ Summary

• Use parametric tests when assumptions (especially normality) are reasonably met.

• Use non-parametric tests for skewed data, ordinal variables, or small samples where normality is uncertain.

• Focus less on raw data distribution and more on model residuals, especially in regression contexts.

• Visual inspection trumps mechanical testing when it comes to real-world data interpretation.