This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.
Harcharandeep Kaur,
Nishu Grover,
- Assistant professor, Department of Management, Ludhiana Group of Colleges, Chaukimann, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, Punjab, India
- Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Ludhiana Group of Colleges, Chaukimann, Ludhiana, Punjab, India, Punjab, India
Abstract
Arithmetic mean is an extremely popular measure of central tendency used in statistical analyses, primarily because it is so easy to calculate and has many positive mathematical characteristics. However, when there are outliers, skewed distributions or heterogeneous spread of data, the reliability of the arithmetic mean diminishes greatly. This paper includes a critical review of the limitations of the arithmetic mean and an assessment of the robustness of the median as an alternative measure. The methodology used in this study is both review-based and conceptual analytical methodology. The study synthesizes literature related to descriptive and robust statistics and examines the behavior of both measures under various data conditions. The results of the analysis indicate that the arithmetic mean is very sensitive to extreme values, which can lead to a misinterpretation of results when working with distributions that are not normal. By contrast, the median shows greater stability and is more resistant to the influence of outliers, which makes it better suited for highly skewed data and also for many real-world datasets such as income and performance data. The findings presented in this review suggest that the median is a more reliable measure of central tendency when the presence of Skewness and outliers exists. The mean is most appropriate for symmetric distributions. This study provides a conceptual framework to assist students in selecting an appropriate measure of central tendency by considering the relevant characteristics of the distribution.
Keywords: Arithmetic mean, descriptive analysis, median, outliers, robust statistics, skewness
References
1. Rakrak M. Central tendency and data distribution: How to choose the right measure for accurate analysis. Int J Lit Educ. 2025;5(1):71–75.
2. Deaton A. The analysis of household surveys: A microeconometric approach to development policy. Reissue ed. Washington (DC): World Bank Publications; 2019.
3. Gastwirth JL. The estimation of the Lorenz curve and Gini index. Rev Econ Stat. 1972;54(3): 306–316.
4. García-Pérez A. A new estimator: Median of the distribution of the mean in robustness. Mathematics. 2023;11(12):2694.
5. Frey BB. The SAGE encyclopedia of research design. 2nd ed. 2022. Available from: https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/the-sage-encyclopedia-of-research-design-2e/chpt/central- tendency-measures
6. Cain MK, Zhang Z, Yuan KH. Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behav Res Methods. 2017;49(5):1716–1735.
7. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(1):52.
8. Hampel FR. The influence curve and its role in robust estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1974;69(346):383–393.
9. Huber PJ. This is robust statistics. In: Lovric M, editor. International encyclopedia of statistical science. Berlin: Springer; 2025. p. 2783–2786.
10. Hettmansperger TP, McKean JW. Robust nonparametric statistical methods. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2010.
11. Maronna RA, Martin RD, Yohai VJ, Salibián-Barrera M. Robust statistics: Theory and methods with R. 2nd ed. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
12. Tsamatsoulis D. Comparing the effectiveness of robust statistical estimators of proficiency testing schemes in outlier detection. Standards. 2023;3(2):110–132.
13. Barnett V, Lewis T. Outliers in statistical data. New York: Wiley; 1994.
14. Iglewicz B, Hoaglin DC. How to detect and handle outliers. Milwaukee (WI): Quality Press; 1993.
15. Smeltzer MP, Ray MA. Statistical considerations for outcomes in clinical research: A review of common data types and methodology. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2022;247(9):734–742. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9134761/
16. Hoaglin DC, Mosteller F, Tukey JW, editors. Understanding robust and exploratory data analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.
17. Moore DS, McCabe GP, Craig BA. Introduction to the practice of statistics. New York: W.H. Freeman; 2009.
18. Agresti A. Statistical methods for the social sciences. 5th ed. London: Pearson; 2018. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=4139774
19. Devore JL. Probability and statistics for engineering and the sciences.
20. Triola MF, Goodman WM, Law R, Labute G. Elementary statistics. Reading (MA): Pearson/Addison-Wesley; 2006.
21. Freedman DA, Klein SP, Ostland M, Roberts MR. David A. Freedman. Carcinogenesis. 1996;23: 225–232.
22. Gelman A, Hill J, Vehtari A. Regression and other stories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021.
23. Box GE, Cox DR. An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 1964;26(2): 211–243.
24. Victoria-Feser MP. Robustness properties of inequality measures. Econometrica. 1996;64(1):77.
25. Micceri T. The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychol Bull. 1989; 105(1):156.
26. Rousseeuw PJ. Least median of squares regression. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79(388):871–880.
27. Wilcox RR. Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing. 5th ed. Academic Press; 2021.
28. Wilcox RR, Keselman HJ. Modern robust data analysis methods: Measures of central tendency. Psychol Methods. 2003;8(3):254.
OmniScience: A Multi-disciplinary Journal
| Volume | 16 | |
| 02 | ||
| Received | 22/05/2026 | |
| Accepted | 23/06/2026 | |
| Published | 05/07/2026 | |
| Publication Time | 44 Days |