Randomization-based tests for "no treatment effects"

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Although both Fisher's and Neyman's tests are for testing "no treatment effects," they both test fundamentally different null hypotheses. While Neyman's null concerns the average casual effect, Fisher's null focuses on the individual causal effect. When conducting a test, researchers need to understand what is really being tested and what underlying assumptions are being made. If these fundamental issues are not fully appreciated, dubious conclusions regarding causal effects can be made.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)349-351
Number of pages3
JournalStatistical Science
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2017


  • Fisher's randomization test
  • Neyman's randomization test
  • Treatment effect
  • Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Statistics and Probability
  • Mathematics(all)
  • Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty


Dive into the research topics of 'Randomization-based tests for "no treatment effects"'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this