12.3 – Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement

Introduction

Within discussions of one-way ANOVA models the distinction between two general classes of models needs to be made clear by the researcher. The distinction lies in how the levels of the factor are selected. If the researcher selects the levels, then the model is a Fixed Effects Model, also called a Model I ANOVA. On the other hand, if the levels of the factor were selected by random sampling from all possible levels of the factor, then the model is a Random Effects Model, also called a Model II ANOVA. This page is about such models and I’ll introduce the intraclass correlation coefficient, abbreviated as ICC, as a way to illustrate applications of Model II ANOVA.

Here’s an example to help the distinction. Consider an experiment to see if over the counter painkillers are as good as prescription pain relievers at reducing numbers of migraines over a six week period. The researcher selects Tylenol^®, Advil^®, Bayer^® Aspirin, and Sumatriptan (Imitrex^®), the latter an example of a medicine only available by prescription. This is clearly an example of fixed effects; the researcher selected the particular medicines for use.

Random effects, in contrast, implies that the researcher draws up a list of all over the counter pain relievers and draws at random three medicines; the researcher would also randomly select from a list of all available prescription medicines.

Fixed effects are probably the more common experimental approaches. To be complete, there is a third class of ANOVA called a Mixed Model or Model III ANOVA, but this type of model only applies to multidimensional ANOVA (eg, two-way ANOVA or higher), and we reserve our discussion of the Model III until we discuss multidimensional ANOVA (Table 1).

Table 1. ANOVA models

Although the calculations for the one-way ANOVA under Model I or Model II are the same, the interpretation of the statistical significance is different between the two.

In Model I ANOVA, any statistical difference applies to the differences among the levels selected, but cannot be generalized back to the population. In contrast, statistical significance of the Factor variable in Model II ANOVA cannot be interpreted as specific differences among the levels of the treatment factor, but instead, apply to the population of levels of the factor. In short, Model I ANOVA results apply only to the study, whereas Model II ANOVA results may be interpreted as general effects, applicable to the population.

This distinction between fixed effects and random effects can be confusing, but it has broad implications for how we interpret our results in the short-term. This conceptual distinction between how the levels of the factor are selected also has general implications for our ability to acquire generalizable knowledge by meta-analysis techniques (Hunter and Schmidt 2000). Often we wish to generalize our results: we can do so only if the levels of the factor were randomly selected in the first place from all possible levels of the factor. In reality, this may not often be the case. It is not difficult to find examples in the published literature in which the experimental design is clearly fixed effects (ie, the researcher selected the treatment levels for a reason), and yet in the discussion of the statistical results, the researcher will lapse into generalizations.

Random Effects Models and agreement

Model II ANOVA is common in settings in which individuals are measured more than once. For example, in behavioral science or in sports science, subjects are typically measured for the response variable more than once over a course of several trials. Another common setting of Model II ANOVA is where more than one raters are judging an event or even a science project. In all of these cases what we are asking is about whether or not the subjects are consistent, in other words, we are asking about the precision of the instrument or measure.

In the assessment of learning by students, for example, different approaches may be tried and the instructor may wish to investigate whether the interventions can explain changes in test scores. To assess instrument validity — an item score from a grading rubric (Goertzen and Klaus 2023), tumor budding as biomarker for colorectal cancer (Bokhorst et al 2020) — agreement or concordance among two or more raters or judges (inter-rater reliability) needs to be established (same citations and references therein). For binomial data, we would be tempted to use the phi coefficient, Is it actually reliable Cohen’s kappa (two judges) or Fleiss Kappa (two or more judges) is a better tool. Phi coefficient and both assessment scores were introduced in Chapter 9.2.

For ratio scale data, agreement among scores of  two or more scores from judges There is an enormous number of articles on reliability measures in the social sciences and you should be aware of a classical paper on reliability by Shrout and Fleiss (1979) (see also McGraw and Wong, 1996). Both the ICC and the Pearson product moment correlation, r, which we will introduce in Chapter 16, are measures of strength of linear association between two ratio scale variables (Jinyuan et al 2016). But ICC is more appropriate for association between repeat measures of the same thing, eg, repeat measures of running speed or agreement between judges. In contrast, the product moment correlation can be used to describe association between any two variables, eg, between repeat measures of running speed, but also between say running speed and maximum jumping height. The concept of repeatability of individual behavior or other characteristics is also a common theme in genetics and so you should not be surprised to learn that the concept actually traces to RA Fisher and his invention of ANOVA. Just as in the case of the sociology literature, there are many papers on the use and interpretation of repeatability in the evolutionary biology literature (eg, Lessels and Boag 1987; Boake 1989; Falconer and Mackay 1996; Dohm 2002; Wolak et al 2012).

Agreement and repeatability are Model II (random effects) because the subjects, items, or raters being studied are treated as a random sample from a larger population rather than specific, fixed levels of interest. In reliability studies, subjects are not chosen for their specific characteristics but as representatives of the population variability. The goal is to infer whether a measurement tool works for any future subject or rater, not just the ones tested in the study. These factors are designed to estimate variance components and generalize results beyond the specific sample used. Put another way, the goal of Model II is often to estimate how much variance is due to differences between subjects versus within subjects (repeatability), which requires treating the subject effect as random.

There are many ways to analyze these kinds of data but a good way is to treat this problem as a one-way ANOVA with Random Effects. Thus, the Random Effects model permits the partitioning of the variation in the study into two portions: the amount that is due to differences among the subjects or judges or intervention versus the amount that is due to variation within the subjects themselves. The Factor is the Subjects and the levels of the factor are how ever many subjects are measured twice or more for the response variable.

If the subjects performance is repeatable, then the Mean Square Between (Among) Subjects, , component will be greater than the Mean Square Error component, , of the model. There are many measures of repeatability or reliability, but the intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC is one of the most common. The ICC may be calculated from the Mean Squares gathered from a Random Effects one-way ANOVA. ICC can take any value between zero and one.

where

and

B and W refers to the among group (between or among groups mean square) and the within group components of variation (error mean square), respectively, from the ANOVA, MS refers to the Mean Squares, and k is the number of repeat measures for each experimental unit. In this formulation k is assumed to be the same for each subject.

By example, when a collection of sprinters run a race, if they ran it again, would the outcome be the same, or at least predictable? If the race is run over and over again and the runners cross the finish lines at different times each race, then much of the variation in performance times will be due to race differences largely independent of any performance abilities of the runners themselves and the Mean Square Error term will be large and the Between subjects Mean Square will be small. In contrast, if the race order is preserved race after race: Jenny is 1st, Ellen is 2nd, Michael is third, and so on, race after race, then differences in performance are largely due to individual differences. In this case, the Between-subjects Mean Square will be large as will the ICC, whereas the Mean Square for Error will be small, and so will the ICC.

Can the intraclass correlation be negative?

In theory, no. Values for ICC range between zero and one. The familiar Pearson product moment correlation, Chapter 16, takes any value between -1 and +1. However, in practice, negative values for ICC will result if .

In other words, if the within group variability is greater than the among group variability, then negative ICC are possible. The question is whether negative estimates are ever biologically relevant or, simply result of limitations of the estimation procedure. Small ICC values and few repeats increases the risk of negative ICC estimates. Thus, a negative ICC would be “simply a(n) “unfortunate” estimate (Liljequist et al 2019). However, there may be situations in which negative ICC is more than unfortunate.  For example, repeatability, a quantitative genetics concept (Falconer and Mackay 1996), can be negative (Nakagawa and Schielzeth 2010).

Repeatability reflects the consistency of individual traits over time (or spatially, eg, scales on on a snake), is defined as the ratio of within individual differences and among individuals differences. Thus, within individual variance is attributed to general environmental effects, , whereas variance among individuals is both genetic and environmental. Scenarios for which repeated measures on the same individual may occur under environmental conditions, termed specific environmental effects or by Falconer and Mackay (1996), that negatively affect performance are not hard to imagine — it remains to be determined how common these conditions are and whether or not estimates of repeatability are negative.

ICC Example

I extracted 15 data points from a figure about nitrogen metabolism in kidney patients following treatment with antibiotics (Figure 1, Mitch et al 1977). I used a web application called WebPlot Digitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd/), but you can also accomplish this task within R via the digitize package. I was concerned about how steady my hand was using my laptop’s small touch screen, a problem that very much can be answered by thinking statistically, and taking advantage of the ICC. So, rather than taking just one estimate of each point I repeated the protocol for extracting the points from the figure three times generating a total of three points for each of the 15 data points or 45 points in all. How consistent was I?

Let’s look at the results just for three points, #1, 2, and 3.

In the R script window enter

points = c(1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3)

Change points to character so that the ANOVA command will treat the numbers as factor levels.

points = as.character(points)
extracts = c(2.0478, 12.2555, 16.0489, 2.0478, 11.9637, 16.0489, 2.0478, 12.2555, 16.0489)

Make a data frame, assign to an object, eg, “digitizer”

digitizer = data.frame(points, extracts)

The dataset “digitizer” should now be attached and available to you within Rcmdr. Select digitizer data set and proceed with the one-way ANOVA.

Output from oneway ANOVA command

Model.1 <- aov(extracts ~ points, data=digitizer)

 summary(Model.1)
            Df    Sum Sq   Mean Sq  F value     Pr(>F)    
points       2 313.38895 156.69448 16562.49 5.9395e-12 ***
Residuals    6   0.05676   0.00946                        
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

numSummary(extracts , groups = points, 
+   statistics=c("mean", "sd"))
         mean           sd data:n
1  2.04780000 0.0000000000      3
2 12.15823333 0.1684708085      3
3 16.04890000 0.0000000000      3

End R output. We need to calculate the ICC

I’d say that’s pretty repeatable and highly precise measurement!

But is it accurate? You should be able to disentangle accuracy from precision based on our previous discussion (Chapter 3.5), but now in the context of a practical way to quantify precision.

ICC calculations in R

We could continue to calculate the ICC by hand, but better to have a function. Here’s a crack at the function to calculate ICC along with a 95% confidence interval.

myICC <- function(m, k, dfN, dfD) {
 testMe <- anova(m) 
 MSB <- testMe$"Mean Sq"[1]
 MSE <- testMe$"Mean Sq"[2]
 varB <- MSB - MSE/k
 ICC <- varB/(varB+MSE)
 fval <- qf(c(.025), df1=dfN, df2=dfD, lower.tail=TRUE)
 CI = (k*MSE*fval)/(MSB+MSE*(k-1)*fval)
 LCIR = ICC-CI
 UCIR = ICC+CI
 myList = c(ICC, LCIR, UCIR)
 return(myList)
}

The user supplies the ANOVA model object (eg, Model.1 from our example), k, which is the number of repeats per unit, and degrees of freedom for the among groups comparison (2 in this example), and the error mean square (6 in this case). Our example, run the function

m2ICC = myICC(Model.1, 3, 2,6); m2ICC

and R returns

[1] 0.9999396 0.9999350 0.9999442

with the ICC reported first, 0.9999396, followed by the lower limit (0.9999350) and the upper limit (0.9999442) of the 95% confidence interval.

Instead of writing your own function, several R packages can calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its variants. These packages include: irr, psy, psych, and rptR.  For complex experiments involving multiple predictor variables, these packages are helpful for obtaining the correct ICC calculation (cf Shrout and Fleiss 1979; McGraw and Wong 1996). For the one-way ANOVA it is easier to just extract the information you need from the ANOVA table and run the calculation directly. We do so for a couple of examples.

Example: Are marathon runners consistent more consistent than my commute times?

Figure 1.Honolulu Marathon 2024 participant. Image credit: Pdubs.94, licensed under CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License), via Wikipedia.

A marathon is 26 miles, 385 yards (42.195 kilometers) long (World Athletics.org). And yet, tens of thousands of people choose to run in these events. For many, running a marathon is a one-off, the culmination of a personal fitness goal. For others, it’s a passion and a few are simply extraordinary, elite runners who can complete the courses in 2 to 3 hours (Table 3). That’s about 12.5 miles per hour. For comparison, my 20 mile commute on the H1 freeway on Oahu typically takes about 40 minutes to complete, or 27 miles per hour (Table 2, yes, I keep track of my commute times, per Galton’s famous maxim: “Whenever you can, count”).

Figure 2. View west along Interstate H-1 (Lunalilo Freeway) at 6:30AM on a weekday, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. Image used with permission, credit: S. Dohm.

Table 2. A sampling of average commute speeds, miles per hour (mph),  on the H1 freeway during DrD’s morning commute (distance about 19.3 miles).

Try on your own.

Calculate the ICC for my commute speeds.

Run the one-way ANOVA to get the necessary mean squares and input the values into our ICC function. We have

require(psych)
m2ICC = myICC(AnovaModel.1, 4, 4,11); m2ICC
[1] 0.7390535 0.6061784 0.8719286

Repeatability, as estimated by the ICC, was 0.74 (95% CI 0.606, 0.872), for repeat measures of commute times.

We can ask the same about marathon runners — how consistent from race to race are these runners? The following data are race times drawn from a sample of runners who completed the Honolulu Marathon in both 2016 and 2017 in 2 to 3 hours (times recorded in minutes). In other words, are elite runners consistent?

Table 3. Honolulu marathon running times (min) for eleven repeat, elite runners.

Stacked worksheet, P refers to person, therefore P1 is person ID 1, P2 is person ID 2, and so on.

After running a one-way ANOVA, here are results for the marathon runners

m2ICC = myICC(Model.1, 2, 10,11); m2ICC
[1] 0.9780464 0.9660059 0.9900868

Repeatability, as estimated by the ICC, was 0.98 (95% CI 0.966, 0.990), for repeat measures of marathon performance. Put more simply, knowing what a runner did in 2016 I would be able to predict their 2017 race performance with high confidence, 98%!

And now, we compare: the runners are more consistent!

Clearly this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it gives us a chance to think about how we might make such comparisons. The ICC will change because of differences among individuals. For example, if individuals are not variable, if everyone finishes the race at the same time, then the ICC will be low (or even zero).  Because there is no variance to be attributed to individual differences, the proportion of total variance explained by those differences will be being minimal.

Visualizing repeated measures.

Waterfall plot.

If just two measures, then a profile plot will do. We introduced profile plots in the paired t-test chapter (Ch10.3). For more than two repeated measures, a line graph will do (see question 9 below). Another graphic increasingly used is the waterfall plot (waterfall chart), particularly for before and after measures or other comparisons against a baseline. For example, it’s a natural question for our eleven marathon runners — how much did they improve on the second attempt of the same course? Figure 3 shows my effort to provide a visual.

Figure 3. Simple waterfall plot of race improvement for Table 3 data. Dashed horizontal line at zero.

R code

Data wrangling: Create a new variable, eg, race21, by subtracting the first time from the second time. Multiply by -1 so that improvement (faster time in second race) is positive. Finally, apply descending sort so that improvement is on the left and increasingly poorer times are on the right.

df <- data.frame(
ID = rep(paste0("P", 1:11), each = 2),
Time = c(179.9,192.0,
129.9,130.8,
128.5,129.6,
179.4,179.7,
174.3,181.7,
177.2,176.2,
169.0,173.4,
174.1,175.2,
175.1,174.2,
163.9,175.9,
179.3,179.8)
)

# Convert to wide format
df_wide <- reshape(df, idvar = "ID", timevar = "ID",
direction = "wide")

# Extract first and second times manually
time_matrix <- matrix(df$Time, ncol = 2, byrow = TRUE)
colnames(time_matrix) <- c("Time1", "Time2")

# Calculate improvement (second - first)
base21 <- time_matrix[,2] - time_matrix[,1]

# Sort for waterfall display
base21 <- sort(base21, decreasing = TRUE)

# Waterfall plot
barplot(base21, col="blue", border="blue", space=0.5,
ylim=c(-20,20),
ylab="Improvement from first race (min)")
abline(h=0, lty=2)

Interpretation.

From the graph (Fig 3) we see that few of the racers improved their times the second time around — a few had decreased times.

Spaghetti plots.

Spaghetti plots, which display individual trajectories over time or multiple measurements, is a specialized line plot effective for visualizing the consistency of performance. The vertical thickness or spread of a single subject’s line across measurements indicates their level of repeatability. A “flat” line indicates high repeatability, while a volatile, zig-zagging line indicates low repeatability. Spaghetti plots are useful to visualize growth, decline, or stability over time for a single performance measure.

Figure 4. A spaghetti plot of average commute speeds from Table 2 data. 

R code

# 1. Enter the data from Table 2.
commute <- data.frame(
Week = 1:4,
Monday = c(28.5, 25.8, 26.2, 23.3),
Tuesday = c(23.8, 22.4, 22.6, 26.9),
Wednesday = c(28.5, 29.3, 24.9, 31.3),
Thursday = c(30.2, 26.2, 24.2, 26.2),
Friday = c(26.9, 27.7, 34.3, 30.2)
)

head(commute)

# 2. Set the X-axis points
days <- 1:5
day_names <- c("Mon", "Tue", "Wed", "Thu", "Fri")

# 3. Create empty plot
# Find range of Y to ensure all data fits
ymin <- min(commute[, 2:6]) - 2
ymax <- max(commute[, 2:6]) + 2

plot(NA, xlim = c(1, 5), ylim = c(ymin, ymax),
xlab = "Day of Week", ylab = "Average Speed (mph)",
main = "Weekly Commute Speeds", xaxt = "n")

# Add X-axis labels
axis(1, at = 1:5, labels = day_names)

# 4. Add lines for each week (spaghetti)
colors <- c("red", "blue", "darkgreen", "purple")
for (i in 1:nrow(commute)) {
# Plot lines
lines(days, commute[i, 2:6], col = colors[i], lwd = 2, type = "b", pch = 19)
}

# 5. Add legend
legend("topleft", legend = paste("Week", 1:4), col = colors, lwd = 2, pch = 19)

Parallel coordinates plots.

Parallel coordinates plot allows each entity to be represented by a unique, continuous line traced across several vertical axes (each representing a different measurement or variable). High repeatability is indicated when a line remains roughly horizontal across all axes, while poor repeatability is visualized as lines that zig-zag or change direction between measurements.

Figure 5. A parallel coordinates plot of average commute speeds from Table 2 data.

Both spaghetti plots and parallel coordinate plots can be used to visualize consistency of performance over multiple measures, but they differ significantly in their handling of data, scale, and context. Spaghetti plots are best for tracking within-subject variability over time, but quickly become a mess — like pasta tossed and sticking to a wall — when subject count increases. Parallel coordinate plots are a multivariate generalization — each line represents an individual’s profile across different tests, eg, accuracy, speed, VO2max.

R code.

# 1. Create the data frame
# see above

# 2. Extract only the numerical commute data for plotting
commute_data <- commute[, 2:6]

# 3. Setup the plot area
# Define range for y-axis
y_range <- range(commute_data)
# Define number of days (5)
num_days <- ncol(commute_data)

# Create empty plot
plot(NA, xlim = c(1, num_days), ylim = y_range, 
xaxt = "n", xlab = "Day of Week", ylab = "Average Speed (mph)",
main = "Average Commute Speed: Weekly Comparison")

# Add x-axis labels
axis(1, at = 1:num_days, labels = colnames(commute_data))

# 4. Draw vertical lines for each day
for (i in 1:num_days) {
lines(c(i, i), y_range, col = "grey", lty = 2)
}

# 5. Add lines for each week (repeated measures)
colors <- c("red", "blue", "darkgreen", "orange")
for (i in 1:nrow(commute_data)) {
lines(1:num_days, commute_data[i, ], col = colors[i], lwd = 2, type = "b", pch = 19)
}

# 6. Add legend
legend("topleft", legend = paste("Week", commute$Week), col = colors, lwd = 2, pch = 19)

Heat map.

Heat map quickly identify patterns, such as an individual’s performance improving, degrading, or remaining stable over time. For example, uniform, solid colors across rows (individuals) or columns (time/trials) indicate high consistency, while varied colors indicate poor repeatability.

Figure 6. A heat map of the commute speeds data set.

R code.

# 1. Create the data
# Week is excluded from matrix to only include numerical commute times
commute_data <- matrix(c(
28.5, 23.8, 28.5, 30.2, 26.9,
25.8, 22.4, 29.3, 26.2, 27.7,
26.2, 22.6, 24.9, 24.2, 34.3,
23.3, 26.9, 31.3, 26.2, 30.2
), nrow = 4, byrow = TRUE)

# 2. Add row and column names
rownames(commute_data) <- c("Week 1", "Week 2", "Week 3", "Week 4")
colnames(commute_data) <- c("Mon", "Tue", "Wed", "Thu", "Fri")

# 3. Create the heatmap
# Use t() to transpose so weeks are rows and days are columns
# Use rev() on rows to have Week 1 at the top
image_data <- t(apply(commute_data, 2, rev))

# Set up the plotting area (margins for labels)
par(mar = c(5, 6, 4, 2))

# Plot the matrix
# Option 1
image(1:nrow(image_data), 1:ncol(image_data), image_data,
col = heat.colors(12),
axes = FALSE, xlab = "Days", ylab = "",
main = "Commute Times Heatmap")

# Add axes labels
axis(1, at = 1:5, labels = colnames(commute_data))
axis(2, at = 1:4, labels = rev(rownames(commute_data)), las = 1)
box()

Interpretation.

The graphs (Fig 4 – 6) show a lack of trends in consistency of drive speeds. The heat map suggests more consistency on Monday — low speeds (Fig 4 & Fig 5), but that’s a stretch.

An example for you to work, from our Measurement Day

If you recall, we had you calculate length and width measures on shells from samples of gastropod and bivalve species. In the table are repeated measures of shell length, by caliper in mm, for a sample of Conus shells (Fig 7 and Table 4).

Figure 7. Conus shells, image by M. Dohm.

Repeated measures of the same 12 Conus shells.

Table 4. Unstacked dataset of repeated length measures on 12 shells

Maximum length from from anterior end to apex with calipers. Repeated measures were conducted blind to shell id, sampling was random over three separate time periods.

Questions

1. Consider data in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4. True or False: The arithmetic mean is an appropriate measure of central tendency. Explain your answer.
2. Enter the shell data into R; Best to copy and stack the data in your spreadsheet, then import into R or R Commander. Once imported, don’t forget to change Sample to character, otherwise R will treat Sample as ratio scale data type. Run your one-way ANOVA and calculate the intraclass correlation (ICC) for the dataset. Is the shell length measure repeatable?
3. The marathon results in Table 2 are paired data, results of two races run by the same individuals. Make a profile plot for the data (see Ch10.3 for help).
4. A profile plot is used to show paired data; for two or more repeat measures, use a line graph instead.
   A. Produce a line graph for data in Table 4. The line graph is an option in R Commander (Rcmdr: Graphs Line graph…), and can be generated with the following simple R code:

lineplot(Sample, Measure1, Measure2, Measure3)

B. What trends, if any, do you see? Report your observations.
C. Make another line plot for data in Table 2. Report any trend and include your observations.

Quiz Chapter 12.3

Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 12 contents

• Introduction
• The need for ANOVA
• One way ANOVA
• Fixed effects, random effects, and agreement
• ANOVA from “sufficient statistics”
• Effect size for ANOVA
• ANOVA posthoc tests
• Many tests one model
• References and suggested readings

3.4 – Estimating parameters

Introduction.

What you will find on this page. Definitions for constants, variables, and parameters as used in data analytics. Statistical bias and the concept of unbiased estimators are discussed. The different types of error are introduced along with definitions of accuracy and precision. Statistics used to quantify error are presented in the next section, Chapter 3.4.

Estimating parameters.

Parameters belong to populations; they are fixed but unknown. Parameters are characteristics of populations: the typical average height and weight of five year old children; What is the normal range of values for height and weight of five year old children; average and range of gene expression of TP53 in epithelial lung cells of 50 year old non-smoking humans; etc. Because we generally do not have at our disposal surveys — census — of entire populations for these characteristics, we sample and calculate descriptive statistics for a subset of individuals from populations: these statistics, the mean height, range of height, etc., are variables. We expect average height, range of height, etc., to change, to vary, from sample to sample. A constant, as the word implies, is not variable and remains unchanged. 

We estimate parameters (means, variances) from samples of observations from a population. Intuitively then, our estimates are only as good as how representative of the population the sample is. Statistics allows us to be more precise: we can define “how good” our estimates are by asking about, and quantifying, the accuracy and precision of our estimates.

Notwithstanding the notion of “personalized medicine,” our goal in science is to understand cause and effect among sets of observations on samples from a population. We ask, what is the link between lung cancer and smoking? We know that smoking tobacco cigarettes increases risk of cancer, but not everyone who smokes will get cancer (Pesch et al., 2012). Tumorigenic risk is in part mediated by heredity (cf. Trifiletti et al 2017). That’s one way we run into problems in statistics: the biological phenomenon is complicated in ways we are not yet aware of, and thus samples drawn from populations are heterogeneous. Put another way, we think there is one population, but there may be many distinct populations. By chance, repeated samples drawn from the population include individuals with different risk associated with heredity.

As an aside, this is precisely why the concept of personalized medicine is important.  Medical researchers have learned that some people with breast cancer respond to treatment with trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody, but others do not (review in Valabrega et al 2007).  Responders have more copies of a gene, copy number variation, for an EGF-like receptor called HER2. In contrast, non-responders to trastuzumab have fewer copies of this receptor (and are said to be HER2-negative in an antibody test for HER2).  Thus, we speak about people with breast cancer as if the disease is the same, and from a statistical point of view, we would assume that individuals with breast cancer are of the same population.  But they are not — and so the treatment fails for some, but works for others.  In this example, we have a mechanism or cause to explain why some do not respond; their breast cancer is not associated with increased copy numbers of HER2.  And so in studies with breast cancer, statisticians may account for differences in HER2 status. Note: Fewer than 30% of breast cancer may have over-expression of HER2, (Bilous et al. 2003).

Clearly, HER2 status would be used by statisticians when drawing samples from population, and we would not mistake samples.  But, in many other situations we are not aware of any differences and so we assume our samples come from the same population. Note that even with imperfect knowledge about samples, experimental design is intended to help mediate heterogeneous samples. For example, this is why treatment controls need to be used, or case controls are included in studies.

Random assignment to groups also is an attempt to control for unknowns: if random, then all treatment groups will likely include representatives of the numerous co-factors that contribute to risk.

Statisticians have an additional, technical burden: there are often a variety of ways (algorithms) to describe or make inferences about samples, and they are not equally capable of giving us “truth.”  Estimates of a parameter are not going to be exactly the true value of the parameter!  This is the problem of identifying unbiased ways to estimate parameters. In statistics, bias quantifies whether an algorithm to calculate a particular statistic (e.g., the mean or variance), is consistently too low or too high. 

Random sampling.

Random sampling from the population is likely to be our best procedure for obtaining representative samples, but it is not foolproof (we’ll return to situations where random sampling fails to provide adequate samples of populations in Chapter 5.5 Importance of randomization in experimental design). However, a second concern is how to calculate the mean, how to calculate the variance. In the section on Descriptive Statistics (Chapter 3.2), we presented how to calculate the arithmetic mean — the simple average — but also introduced you to other calculations for the middle (e.g., median, geometric mean, harmonic mean). How to know which “middle” is correct?

Statisticians use the concept of bias — the simple arithmetic mean is an unbiased estimator of the population parameter, but a correction needs to be made to the calculation of sample variance to remove bias. Bias implies that the estimator systematically misses the target in some way. Good or “best” parameter estimates are, on average, going to be close to the actual parameter if we collected many samples of the population (this will depend on the sample size and the variability of the data). Earlier we introduced Bessel’s correction to the sample variance, divide the sum of squares by n – 1 and not N as we did for the population variance, so that it is an unbiased estimator of the sample variance.  Thus, statisticians have worked out how well their statistical equations work as estimators; concepts of expected values or the expectation are used to evaluate how well an estimator works. In statistics, the expected value of a statistic is calculated by multiplying each of the possible outcomes by the likelihood each outcome will occur and then summing all of those values..

We need to add a bit more to our discussion about measurement and estimation.

Types of error.

To measure is to assign a number to something, a variable. Measurements can have multiple levels, but are of the four data types: nominal, ordinal, interval scale, and ratio scale. Nominal and ordinal types are categorical or qualitative; interval and ratio are continuous or quantitative. Errors in measurement represent differences between what is observed and recorded compared with the true value, i.e., the actual population value. With respect to measurement we distinguish between random errors and systematic errors. Random errors occur by chance, and are thus expected to vary from one measurement instance from another. Random error may lead to measures larger or smaller than the true value. Systematic errors are of a kind that can be attributed to failures of an experimental design or instrument.

Accuracy is reflected in the question: how close to the true value is our measure? Accuracy is distinct from precision, the concept of how clustered together are repeated values for the same measurement. All measurement has associated error, which may be divided into two kinds: random error and systematic error.

We tend to think of error in terms of mistakes, mistakes by us or as failure of the measurement process. However, in biology research, that is too restrictive of a meaning for error. First, experimental error occurs when the estimates derived from the samples — sample mean, sample variance — differ from the population parameters — population mean, population variance. Second, error in biology ranges from mistakes in data collection to real differences among individuals for a characteristic. The latter source, error among individuals, is of course, not a mistake, but rather, it’s the “very spice of life” (Cowper 1845). We’ll leave the study of individual differences, biological error, for later. This section is concerned with error in the sense of mistakes.

Random error includes things like chance error in an instrument leading to different repeat measures of the same thing and to the reality that individual differences exist for most biological traits. We minimize the effects of this kind of error by randomizing: we randomly select samples from populations; we randomly assign samples to treatment groups. Random error can make it hard to differentiate treatment effects. Random error decreases precision, the repeatability of measures. At worse, random error is conservative — it tends to mean we miss group differences, we conclude that the treatment (e.g., aspirin analgesics) has no effect on the condition (e.g., migraines). This kind of error is referred to as a Type II error (Chapter 8).

The experimental design remedy for random error is to increase sample size, a key conclusion drawn from power analysis on experiments, discussed in Chapter 11. The other type of error, systematic error, a type of bias, is more in line with the idea of errors being synonymous with mistakes. Uncalibrated instruments yield incorrect measures. And these kinds of errors lead us to make errors that can be more problematic. An example? Back in the early 1990s when I started research on whole animal metabolic rates (e.g., Dohm et al 1994, Beck et al 1995), we routinely set baseline carbon dioxide, CO₂, levels to 0.035% of volume of dry air (350 ppm, parts per million), which reflected ambient levels of CO₂ at the time (see Figure 4 in Chapter 4.6).

#NOAA monthly data from Mauna Loa Observatory
co2.1994 <- c(358.22, 358.98, 359.91, 361.32, 361.68, 360.80, 359.39, 357.42, 355.63, 356.09, 357.56, 358.87)

You are probably aware, today, background CO₂ have increased considerably even since the 1980s. Data for 2021 (average 420 ppm — reporting just 2 significant figures) are provided below

co2.2021 <- c(415.49, 416.72, 417.61, 419.01, 419.09, 418.93, 416.9, 414.42, 413.26, 413.9, 414.97, 416.67)

source: Global Monitoring Lab, NOAA

Thus, if I naively compared rates of CO₂ produced by an animal at rest, , measured today against the data I gathered back in the 1990s without account for the change in background CO₂ in my analysis, I will have committed a systematic error: values of on animals would be systematically higher than values for 1988 when I apply a baseline correction.

Examples of error. 

One under-reported cost of next-generation sequencing technologies is that base calls, the process of assigning a nucleotide base to chromatogram peaks has more errors than traditional Sanger-based sequencing methods (Fox et al 2014). In “next-generation-sequencing” (NGS) methods, individual DNA fragments are assigned sequences, whereas Sanger methods took the average sequence of a collection of DNA fragments; thus, in principle, NGS methods should be able to characterize variation of mixtures of sequences in ways not available to traditional sequencing approaches. However, artifacts introduced in sample preparation and PCR amplification lead to base calling errors (Fox et al 2014).

Gene expression levels will differ among tissue types, thus mixed samples from different tissues will misrepresent gene expression levels.

Measurement of energy expenditure, oxygen uptake and carbon dioxide release by an organism, have long been sources of study in ecology and other disciplines. A classic measure is called basal metabolic rate, measured as the rate of oxygen consumption of an endothermic animal, post-absorptive (i.e., not digesting food), at rest but not sleeping, while the animal is contained within a thermal-neutral environment (Blaxter 1989). 

Accuracy and precision.

Two properties of measurement are the accuracy of the measure and its precision. Accuracy is defined as the closeness of a measured value to its true value. Precision refers to the closeness of a second measure to the first, to the closeness of a third measure to the first and second, and so on. Precision refers to repeatability of measurement.  We suggested use of the coefficient of variation, defined with examples in Chapter 3.2, as a way to quantify precision.

Consider the accuracy and precision of three volumetric pipettors: p1000, which has a nominal range between 100 and 1000 μL (microliters); p200, which has a range between 20 and 200 μL; p100, which has a range between 10 and 100 μL. Which of these three pipettors do you think would have the best accuracy and precision for dispensing 100 μL? We can test pipettors by measuring the mass of distilled water dispensed by the pipettor on an analytical balance. For 100 μL of distilled water at standard temperature and pressure conditions, the mass of the water would be 0.100 grams. The results are shown in the table, and a dot plot is shown in the figure to help us see the numbers.

Table 1. Mass (grams) of 100 μL of distilled water dispensed by three volumetric pipettors*

*Temperature 21.5 °C, barometric pressure 76.28 cm mercury (elevation 52 meters). Data presented in Table 1 were not corrected to standard temperature or pressure.

Here is the code for the R run; assuming that you have started R commander, then copy and paste each line into the R Commander script window; if not, enter the script one line at a time in the R console. Recall that the hashtag, #, is used to add comment lines.

#create the variables
p1000 <- c(0.113, 0.114, 0.113, 0.115, 0.113, 0.112, 0.113, 0.111, 0.114, 0.112)
p100 <- c(0.101, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.101, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.1)
p200 <- c(0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.099, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.101, 0.1)

#create a data frame
pipet <- data.frame(p100,p200,p1000)
attach(pipet)

#stack the data
stackPipet <- stack(pipet[, c("p100","p200","p1000")])
#Add variable names
names(stackPipet) <- c("mass", "pipet")
#create the dot plot
with(stackPipet, RcmdrMisc::Dotplot(mass, by=pipet, bin=FALSE))

From Table 1 we see that the means for the p100 and p200 were both close to the target mass of 0.1 g. The mean for the p1000, however, was higher than the target mass of 0.1 g.  A dot plot is a good way to display measurements (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. Dot plot of pipet results.

From the dot plot we can quickly see that the p1000 was both inaccurate (the data fall well above the true value), and lacked precision (the values were spread about the mean value). The other two pipettors showed accuracy and looked to be similar in precision, although only two of ten values for the p200 were off target compared to four of ten values for the p100. Thus, we would conclude that the p200 was best at dispensing 100 microliters of water.

In the next chapter we apply statistics to estimate our confidence in this conclusion. In contrast to measurement, estimation implies calculation of a value. In statistics, estimates may be a point, e.g., a value of a collection of data, or an interval, e.g., a confidence interval.

Summary.

This is your first introduction into the concept of experimental design, as defined by statisticians! One of the key tasks for a statistical analyst is to have an appreciation for measurement accuracy and precision as established in the experiment. Precise and accurate measurement levels determine how well questions about the experiment can be answered. At one extreme, if a measure is imprecise, but accurate, then it will be challenging to quantify differences between a control group and a treatment group. At the other extreme, if the measure is precise, but inaccurate, the danger would be differences between the treatment and control group may be more likely, even when the groups are truly not different!

Questions.

1. List the types of error in measuring mRNA expression levels on a gene for a sampling of cells from biopsy of normal tissue and a biopsy of a tumor. Assume use of NEXGEN methods for measuring gene expression. Distinguish between technical errors and biological errors.
2. If confidence interval are useful for estimating accuracy, what statistic do we call to quantify precision?

Quiz Chapter 3.4

Estimating parameters

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 3 contents

• Exploring data
• Data types
• Measures of Central Tendency
• Measures of dispersion
• Estimating parameters
• Statistics of error
• References and suggested readings

11.1 – What is Statistical Power?

Introduction

Simply put, the power of a statistical test asks the question: do we have enough data to warrant a scientific conclusion, not just a statistical inference. From the NHST approach to statistics, we define two conditions in our analyses, a null hypothesis, H_O, and the alternative hypothesis, H_A. By now you should have a working definition of H_O and H_A (Chapter 8.1). For the two-sided case (Chapter 8.4), H_O would be no statistical difference between two sample means, whereas for H_A, there was a difference between two sample means. Similarly, for one-sided cases, H_O would be one sample mean greater (less) than or equal to the second sample mean, whereas for H_A, one sample mean is less (greater) than the second mean. Together, these two hypotheses cover all possible outcomes of our experiment!

However, when conducting an experiment to test the null hypothesis four, not two outcomes are possible with respect to “truth” (Table 1), which we introduced first in our Risk analysis chapter and again when we introduced statistical inference.

Table 1. Possible outcomes of an experiment

We introduced false positives and false negatives in our discussion of risk analysis, and now generalize these concepts to outcomes of any experiment.

(1) We do not reject the null hypothesis, we state that we are 95% (P = 1 – α) confident that we’ve made the correct decision, and in fact, that is the true situation (“correct decision”). As before this is a true positive.

For example, mean acetylsalicylic acid concentration in a sample of 200 mg, brand-name aspirin tablets really is the same as generic aspirin.

(2) We reject the null hypothesis, we state there is a 5% chance that we could be wrong (P = 1 – β), and in fact, that is the true situation (“correct decision”). As before this is a true negative.

For example, ephedrine really does raise heart rates in people who have taken the stimulant compared to those who have taken a placebo.

Two additional possible outcomes to an experiment

The other two possible outcomes are not desirable but may occur because we are making inferences about populations from limited information (we conduct tests on samples) and because of random chance influencing our measure.

(3) We do not reject the null hypothesis, but in fact, there was a true difference between the two groups and we have therefore committed a Type II error. As before this is a false negative.

(4) We reject the null hypothesis, but in fact, there was no actual difference between the two groups and we have therefore committed a Type I error. As before this is a false positive.

What can we do about these two possible undesirable outcomes?

We set our Type I error rate α, and, therefore our Type II error rate β before we conduct any tests, and these error rates cover the possibility that we may incorrectly conclude that the null hypothesis is false (α), or we may incorrectly conclude that the null hypothesis is true (β). When might these events happen?

The power of a statistical test is the probability that the test will reject the null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is true.

A type I error is committed, by chance alone, when our sample is accidentally obtained from the tail of the distribution, thus our sample appears to be different from the population… Below, we have a possible case that, by chance alone, we could be getting all of our subjects from one end of the distribution (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Population sampling from tail of distribution.

We would likely conclude that our sample mean is different (greater) than the population mean.

A type II error is committed, by chance alone, when our sample is between two different population distributions. The implication for our study is drawn in Figure 2. Instead of our sampling drawn from one population, we may have drawn between two very different populations.

Figure 2. Without us knowing, our sample may come from the extremes of two separate populations.

How did we end up with “the wrong” sample? Recall from our first discussions about Experimental Design how we distinguished between random and haphazard sampling. The key concept was that a program of recruitment of subjects (eg, how to get a sample) must be conducted in such a way that each member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the study. Only then can we be sure that extrinsic factors (things that influence our outcome but are not under our control nor do we study them) are spread over all groups, thus canceling out.

Why do we say we are 95% confident in our estimate (or conclusions)?

(1) Because we can never be 100% certain that by chance alone we haven’t gotten a biased sample (all it takes is a few subjects in some cases to “throw off” our results).

(2) For parametric tests, at least, we assume that we are sampling from a normal population.

Thus, in statistics, we need an additional concept. Not only do we need to know the probability of when we will be wrong (α, β), but we also want to know the probability of when we will be correct when we use a particular statistical test. This latter concept is defined as the power of a test as the probability of correctly rejecting Ho when it is false. Conducting a power analysis before starting the experiment can help answer basic experimental design questions like, how many subjects (experimental units) should my project include? What approximate differences, if any might I expect among the subjects? (Eng 2003; Cohen 1992)

Put another way, power is the likelihood of identifying a significant (important) effect (difference) when one exists. Formally, statistical power is defined as the probability, p = 1 – β, and it is the subject of this chapter.

Questions

1. Be able to define and distinguish statistical power and statistical inference.

Quiz Chapter 11.1

What is statistical power

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 11 contents

• Introduction
• What is Statistical Power?
• Prospective and retrospective power
• Factors influencing statistical power
• Two sample effect size
• Power analysis in R
• References and suggested readings

5.6 – Sampling from Populations

Introduction

Researchers generally can’t study an entire population. More generally, striving to study each member of a population is not necessary to arrive at answers about the population. For example, consider the question, does taking a multivitamin daily improve health? What are our options? Do we really need to follow every single individual in the United States of America, monitoring their health and noting whether or not the person takes vitamins daily in order to test (inference) this hypothesis? Or, can we get at the same answer by careful experimental design (see Schatzkin et al 2002; Dawsey et al 2014)? Supplement use is wide-spread in the United States, but both health and vitamin use differ by demographics. Young people tend to be healthier than older people and older people tend to take supplements more than younger people.

A subset of the population is measured for some trait or characteristic. From the sample, we hope to refer back to the population. We want to move from anecdote (case histories) to possible generalizations of use to the reference population (all patients with these symptoms). How we sample from the reference population limits our ability to generalize. We need a representative sample: simple to define, hard to achieve.

Statistics becomes necessary if we want to infer something about the entire populations. (Which is usually the point of doing a study!!) Typically tens to thousands of individuals are measured. But in addition, HOW we obtain the sample of individuals from the reference population is CRITICAL.

Kinds of sampling include (adapted from Box 1, Tyrer and Heyman 2016; see also McGarvey et al 2016)

Probability sampling

• random
• stratified
• blocking
• clustered
• systematic

Nonprobability sampling

• convenience, haphazard
• judgement
• quota
• snowball

For an exhaustive, authoritative look at sampling, see Thompson (2012).

How can samples be obtained?

Sampling from a population may be convenient. For one famous example, consider the Bumpus data set. (We introduced this data set in Question 5, Chapter 5.) So the legend goes, Professor Bumpus was walking across the campus of Brown University, the day after a severe winter storm, and came across a number of motionless house sparrows on the ground. Bumpus collected the birds and brought them to his lab. Seventy-two birds recovered; 64 did not (Table1).

Table 1. A subset of Bumpus data set, summarized by sex of birds.

Bumpus reported differences in body size that correlated with survival (Bumpus 1899), and this report is often taken as an example of Natural Selection (cf. Johnston et al 1972). The Bumpus dataset is clearly convenience sampling. It’s also a case study: a report of a single incident. But given that is is a large sample (n = 136), it is tempting to use the data to inform about about possible characteristics of the birds that survived compared with those that perished.

Another way we collect samples from populations is best termed haphazard. In graduate school I got the opportunity to study locomotor performance of whiptail lizards (Aspidoscelis tigris, A. marmoratus, genus formerly Cnemidophorus**) across a hybrid zone in the Southwest United States (Dohm et al. 1998). During the day we would walk in areas where the lizards were known to occur and capture any individual we saw by hand. (This would sometimes mean sticking our hands down into burrows, which was always exciting — you never really knew if you were going to find your lizard or if you were going to find a scorpion, venomous spider, or …) Lizards collected were returned to the lab for subsequent measures. Clearly, this was not convenience sampling; it involved a lot of work under the hot sun. But just as clearly, we could only catch what we could see and even the best of us would occasionally lose a lizard that had been spotted. Moreover, one suspects we missed many lizards that were present, but not in our view. Lizards that were underground at the time we visited a spot would not be seen nor captured by us; individual lizards that were especially wary of people (Bulova 1994) would also escape us. In other words, we caught the lizards that were catchable and can only assume (hope?) that they were representative of all of these lizards. Applying a grid or quadrant system to the area and then randomly visiting plots within the grid or quadrant might help, but still would not eliminate the potential for biased sampling we faced in this study.

Quota sampling implies selection of subjects by some specific criteria, weighted by the proportions represented in the population. It’s different from stratified sampling because there is no random selection scheme: subjects are selected based on matching some criteria, and collection for that group stops when the sample number matches the proportion in the population. Consider our vitamin supplement survey. If student population at Chaminade University was the reference population, and we have enough money to survey 100 students, then we would want a sample of 70 women students and 30 male students, representing the proportions of the student population.

Snowball sampling implies that you rely on word-of-mouth to complete sampling. After initial recruitment of subjects, sample size for the study increases because early participants refer others to the researchers. This can be a powerful tool for reaching underrepresented communities (eg, Valerio et al 2016).

Types of Probability sampling

Random sampling is an example of probability sampling. As we defined earlier, simple random sampling requires that you know how many subjects are in the population (N) and then each subject has an equal chance of being selected

Examples of nonprobability sampling include

• convenience sampling
• volunteer sampling
• judgement sampling

Convenience sampling (the first 20 people you meet at the library lanai); volunteer sampling (you stand in front of a room of strangers and ask for any ten people to come forward and take your survey — or more seriously, persons with a terminal disease calling a clinic reportedly known to cure the disease with a radical new, experimental treatment), and judgement sampling (to study tastes in fashion, you decide that only persons over six feet tall should be included because .…).

Random in statistics has a very important, strict meaning. As opposed to our day-to-day usage, random sampling from a population means that the probability that any one individual is chosen to be included in a sample is equal. Formally, this is called simple random sampling to distinguish it from more complex schemes. For a sampling procedure to be random requires a formal procedure for sampling a population with known size (N).

For example, at the end of the semester, I may select the order for student presentations at random. Thus, students in the classroom would be considered the population (groups of students are my sample unit, not individual students!). What is the probability that your group will be called first? Second? We need to know how many groups there are to conduct simple random sampling. Let’s take an extreme and say that all groups have a size of one; there are 26 students in this room, so

or

of being selected first.

Now to determine the probability of your group being selected second, we need to distinguish between two kinds of sampling:

• Sampling with replacement — after I select the first group, the first group is returned to the pool of groups that have not been selected. In other words, with replacement, your group could be selected first and selected second! The probability of being selected second then remains

     

  .

• Sampling without replacement — after I select the first group, then I have

     

  groups left to select the second group, so probability that your group will be second is

     

  . The first group has already been selected and is not available.

Random sampling refers to how subjects are selected from the target, reference population. Random assignment, however, describes the process by which subjects are assigned to treatment groups of an experiment. Random sampling applies to the external validity of the experiment: to the extent that a truly random sample was drawn, then results may be generalized to the study population. Random assignment of subjects to treatment however makes the experiment internally valid: results from the experiment may be interpreted in terms of causality.

R code, sample without replacement

sample(26)
[1] 1 10 11 23 17 13 8 6 19 20 21 16 14 15 5 2 12 4 26 22 9 7 25 18 3 24

R code, sample with replacement

mySample <- sample(26, replace = TRUE); mySample
[1] 9 26 24 9 3 1 23 14 26 6 5 19 17 23 11 12 3 8 7 19 2 16 3 11 1 1

How many elements duplicated?

out <- duplicated(mySample); table(out)
out
FALSE TRUE 
17 9

More on sampling in R discussed in Sampling with computers below.

Additional sampling schemes

Simple random sampling is not the only option, but in many cases it is the most desirable. Consider our multivitamin study again. Perhaps studying the entire USA population is a bit extreme. How about working from a list of AARP members, sending out questionnaires to millions of persons on this list, getting back about 20% of the questionnaires, sorting through the responses and identifying the respondent to diet categories and multivitamin use. The researchers had nearly 500,000 persons willing and able to participate in their prospective study (Schatzkin et al 2001; Dawsey et al 2014; Lim et al 2021). It’s an enormous study. But is this really much better than our described lizard experiment? Let’s count the ways: Not all older people are members of AARP (that 500,000? That’s less than 1% of the 50 and older persons in the USA); A large majority of AARP members did not return surveys; Some fraction of the returned surveys were not usable; How representative of diverse aged populations in the United States is AARP?

Simple random sampling may not be practical, particularly if sub-populations, or strata, are present and members of the different sub-populations are not available to the researcher in the same numbers. In ecology, habitat-use studies routinely need to account for the patchiness of the environment in space and time (Wiens 1976; Summerville and Crisp 2021). Thus, samples are drawn in such a way to represent the frequency within each sub-population.

For a simple example, researchers conducting a controlled breeding program of mice don’t use simple random sampling to choose pairs of mates; after all, random sampling without regard of sex of the mice would lead to some pairings of males only, or females only (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Sixteen mice, eight red and eight blue. Image © 2024 Mia D Graphics

R code

pairs <- c(rep("red", 8), rep("blue", 8))
replicate(2, sample(pairs, 8), simplify = FALSE)

[[1]]
[1] "blue" "blue" "blue" "red" "blue" "red" "blue" "red"

[[2]]
[1] "blue" "blue" "red" "red" "red" "red" "red" "blue"

Oops. If we interpret the output blue = male and red = female, then four out of the eight pairs were same sex pairings.

Thus, the breeding strategy is to random sample from female mice and from male mice and the stratification is sex of the mouse. Alternatively, breeders may select mice to form breeding pairs systematically: From a large colony with dozens of cages, the breeder may select one mouse from every third cage.

Stratified Random Sampling: Individuals in the population are classified into strata or sub-groups: age, economic class, ethnicity, gender, sex …, as many as needed. Then choose a simple random sample from each group, typically in proportion to the size of the sub-groups in the population. Combine those into the overall sample. For example, when I wanted a random sample of mice for my work, I called the supplier and requested that a total of 100 male and female mice be randomly selected from the five colonies they maintained. The reference population is the entire supply of mice at that company (at that time), but I wished to make sure that I got unrelated mice, so I needed to divide the population into groups (the five colonies) before my sample was constructed.

For a simple example of the need for stratified sampling, consider our 16 blue and red mice again. If mice were randomly assigned to treatment group, then by chance unequal samples within strata may be assigned to a treatment group, potentially biasing our conclusions (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Sixteen mice, randomly assigned to treatment groups C and T; by chance, 75% blue in C and just 25% in T. If color was a confounding factor then our conclusions about the effectiveness of the treatment would be associated with color. Image © 2024 Mia D Graphics

Block sampling: superficially resembles stratified sampling, but refers to how experimental units are assigned to treatment groups. Blocks in experimental design refers to potentially confounding factors for which we wish to control, but are otherwise not interested in. For our example described in Figure 2, mouse color may not be of specific interest for our study and therefore would be considered a blocking effect.

Agricultural research provides a host of other blocking situations: plots distributed across an elevation or hydration gradient (Fig 3), soil types, and many others.

Figure 3. Agricultural fields in Central Poland. NASA https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/images/146593/agriculture-fields-in-central-poland/146595w

For a microbiology example, edge effects of heated culture plates. For a growth experiment it’s unlikely we are specifically interested in the plate layout on the growth characteristics of treated cells. However, it’s also unlikely we can assume placement has no influence on growth (eg,  Mansoury et al 2021). A 96-well microplate has 60 inner wells and 36 edge wells (A1 – H1, A12-H12, plus 1^st and 12^th wells of columns B – H, for a total of 36 wells, Fig 4). Thus, analysis of growth effects should include a block effect for well position.

Figure 4. Format of 96-well plate. Red cells = “edge” wells; blue cells = “inner” wells. Plotted with ggplate package.

For long incubation periods it’s not unexpected that edge wells and inner wells may evaporate at different rates, potentially confounding interpretation of treatment effects if, by chance, treatment samples are more commonly assigned to edge wells. Block sampling implies subjects from treatment groups are randomly assigned to each block, in equal numbers if possible.

Cluster Sampling: In many situations, the population is far too large or too dispersed and scattered for a list of the entire population to be known. And, a random approach ignores that there is a natural grouping — people live next to each other, so there is going to be things in common. A multi-stage approach to sampling will be better than simply taking a random sample approach. Most surveys of opinion (when conducted reputably) use a multi-stage method. For example, if a senator wishes to poll his constituents about an issue, he may his pollster will randomly select a few of the counties from his state (first stage), then randomly select among towns or cities (second stage), to obtain a list of 1000 people to call. In some instances, they might use even more stages. At each stage, they might do a stratified random sample on sex, race, income level, or any other useful variable on which they could get information before sampling. If you are interested in this kind of work, for starters, see Couper and Miller (2009).

There are more types of sampling, and entire books written about the best way to conduct sampling. One important thing to keep in mind is that as long as the sample is large relative to the size of the population, each of the above methods generally will get the same answers (= the statistics generated from the samples will be representative of the population).

As long as some attempt is made to randomize, then you can say that the procedure is probability sampling. Nonprobability, or haphazard sampling, describes the other possibility, that is, each element is selected arbitrarily by a non-formal selecting of individual. … all the fish or birds that you catch may not be a random sample of those present in a population. For example,

• wild Pacific salmon do not feed on the surface, hatchery salmon feed on the surface. …
• all the individuals who respond to a survey.
• Phone surveys, web surveys, person on the street surveys… how random, how representative?

Sampling with computers

Now to determine the probability of your group being selected second, we need to distinguish between two kinds of sampling:

Sampling with replacement — after I select the first group, the first group is returned to the pool of groups that have not been selected. In other words, with replacement, your group could be selected first and selected second! The probability of being selected second then remains

   

Sampling without replacement — after I select the first group, then I have

   

groups left to select the second group, so probability that your group will be second is

   

. The first group has already been selected and is not available, and so on.

Sampling is usually easiest if a computer is used. Computers use algorithms to generate pseudo-random numbers. We call the resulting numbers pseudo-random to distinguish them from truly random physical processes (eg, radioactive decay). For more information about random numbers, please see random.org.

If all you wish to do is select a few observations or you need to use a random procedure to select subjects prior to observations, then these websites can provide a very quick, useful tool.

Sampling in Microsoft Excel or LibreOffice Calc

Microsoft’s Excel is pretty good at sampling, but requires knowledge of included functions. Here are the steps to generate random numbers and select with and without replacement in Excel. I’ll give you two cases.

1. For random numbers, enter the function =rand() in a cell, then drag the cell handle to fill in cells to N (in our case = 26, so A1 to A26). This function generates a random (more or less!) number between 0 and 1. We want digits between 1 and 26, not fractions between 0 and 1, so combine INT function with RAND function

=INT(27*RAND())

Note 2: To get between 1 and 9, multiply by 10 instead of 27; to get between 1 and 100, multiply by 101, etc.

In Excel to sample with replacement, simply pick the first two cells (the algorithm Excel used already has conducted sample with replacement. See next item for method to sample without replacement in Excel. You have to have installed the Data Analysis Tool Pak. Here’s instructions for Office 2010.

If you have a Mac and Office 2008, there is no Data Analysis Tool Pak, so to get this function in your Excel, install a third-party add-in program (eg, StatPlus, a free add-in, really nice, adds a lot of function to your Excel). If you have the 2011 version of Office for Mac, then the Data Analysis Tool Pak is included, but like your Windows counterparts, you have to install it (click here for instructions).

2. Let’s say that we have already given each group a number between 1 and 26 and we enter those numbers in sequence in column A.

To sample without replacement, select Tools → Data Analysis… (if this option is not available, you’ll have to add it — see Excel help for instructions, Fig 5).

Figure 5. Screenshot of Sampling in Data Analysis menu, Microsoft Excel

Enter the cells with the numbers you wish to select from. In our example, column A has the numbers 1 through 26 representing each group in our class. I entered A:A as the Input Range.

Next, select “Random” and enter the number of samples. I want two.

Click OK and the output will be placed into cell B3 (my choice); I could have just as easily had Excel put the answer into a new worksheet.

Figure 6. Screenshot of input required for Sampling in Data Analysis menu, Microsoft Excel

To sample with replacement from column A (with our 1 through 26), type in the formula B1

=INT(27*RAND())

and the formula C1

=INDEX(A:A,RANK(B1,B:B))

then drag the cell handles to fill in the columns (first column B, then column C).

That’ll do it for MS Excel or LibreOffice Calc.

Sampling with R (Rcmdr)

It’s much easier with much more control to get sampling in Rcmdr (R) than in Excel. Sampling in R is based on the function called sample() and sample.int(). I will present just the sample() command here.

sample(x, size, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)

Example

You want to sample ten integers between 1 and 10

sample(10)

R output

sample(10)
[1]  5  1 10  8  7  3  4  9  2  6

You have a list of subjects, A1 through A10

subjects = c("A1","A2","A3","A4","A5","A6","A7","A8","A9","A10") 
sample(subjects, 3, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)

R output

sample(subjects, 3, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
[1] "A5" "A2" "A9"

Could use this to arrange random order for ten subjects

sample(subjects, 10, replace = FALSE, prob = NULL)
[1] "A9" "A3" "A8" "A2" "A1" "A4" "A10" "A7" "A5" "A6" 

Try with replacement; To sample with replacement, type in TRUE after replace in the sample() function. The R output follows

sample(x, 10, replace = TRUE, prob = NULL)
[1]  5  5  3  5  3  7  3  5 10  6

R’s randomness is based on pseudonumbers and is, therefore, not truly random (actually, this is true of just about all computer-based algorithms unless they are based on some chaotic process). We can use this pseudo part to our advantage: if we want to reproduce our “random” process, we can seed the random number algorithm to a value (eg, 100), with the command in the Script Window

set.seed(100)

For 10 random integers (eg, observations), type in the Script window

sample(10)

R returns the following in the Output Window

sample(10)
[1] 4 5 7 3 10 9 2 1 6 8

Sampling was done without replacement. Here’s another selection round,

First without setting a seed value

sample(10)
[1] 10 4 7 3 8 1 2 9 6 5

Try again to see if get the same 10

sample(10)
[1]  1  4  8  2  9  6  5 10  3  7

Now to demonstrate how setting the seed allows you to draw repeated samples that are the same.

Note 3: If I need to precede the sample command with a set.seed() call, then sampling is repeatable.

set.seed(100)
sample(10)
[1] 4 3 5 1 9 6 10 2 8 7

and try again

set.seed(100)
sample(10)
[1] 4 3 5 1 9 6 10 2 8 7

Additional R packages that help with sampling schemes include: sampling() and spatialsample, which is part of the BiodiversityR package, which is available as a plugin for R Commander.

Quiz Chapter 5.6

Sampling from populations

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Questions

1. For our two descriptions of experiments in section 6.1 (the sample of patients; the sample of frogs), which sampling technique was used?
2. What purpose is served by set.seed() in a sampling trial?
3. Consider our question, Does taking a multivitamin daily improve health? Imagine you have a grant willing to support a long-term prospective study to follow up to one thousand people for ten years. List at least three concerns with proposed solutions about how sampling of subjects for the study.
4. Imagine you wish to conduct a detailed survey to learn about student preferences. Your survey will include many questions, so you decide to ask just ten students. Student population is 70% female, 30% male.
   1. Assuming you select at random (simple random sampling), what is the chance that no male students will be included in your survey?
   2. You are able to increase the number of surveys to 20, 30, 40, or 50. What is the chance that no male students will be included in your survey for each of these increased sample numbers?
      1. What can you conclude about the effects of increasing survey sample size on representativeness of students for the survey?
5. Discuss how you could apply a stratified sampling scheme to this survey and whether or not this approach improves representativeness.
6. Why are random numbers generated by a computer called pseudo random numbers?

---

Chapter 5 contents

• The basics explained
• Experiments
• Experimental and Sampling units
• Replication, Bias, and Nuisance Variables
• Clinical trials
• Importance of randomization in experimental design
• Sampling from Populations
• References and suggested readings

5.5 – Importance of randomization in experimental design

Introduction

If the goal of the research is to make general, evidenced-based statements about causes of disease or other conditions of concern to the researcher, then how the subjects are selected for study directly impacts our ability to make generalizable conclusions. The most important concept to learn about inference in statistical science is that your sample of subjects upon which all measurements and treatments are conducted, ideally should be a random selection of individuals from a well-defined reference population.

The primary benefit of random sampling is that it strengthens our confidence in the links between cause and effect. Often after an intervention trial is complete, differences among the treatment groups will be observed. Groups of subjects who participated in sixteen weeks of “vigorous” aerobic exercise training show reduced systolic blood pressure compared to those subjects who engaged in light exercise for the same period of time (Cox et al 1996). But how do we know that exercise training caused the difference in blood pressure between the two treatment groups? Couldn’t the differences be explained by chance differences in the subjects? Age, body mass index (BMI), overall health, family history, etc?

How can we account for these additional differences among the subjects? If you are thinking like an experimental biologist, then the word “control” is likely coming to the foreground. Why not design a study in which all 60 subjects are the same age, the same BMI, the same general health, the same family … history…? Hmm. That does not work. Even if you decide to control age, BMI, and general health categories, you can imagine the increased effort and cost to the project in trying to recruit subjects based on such narrow criteria. So, control per se is not the general answer.

If done properly, random sampling makes these alternative explanations less likely. Random sampling implies that other factors that may causally contribute to differences in the measured outcome, but themselves are not measured or included as a focus of the research study, should be the same, on average, among our different treatment groups. The practical benefits of proper random sampling is that recruiting subjects gets easier — fewer subjects will be needed because you are not trying to control dozens of factors that may (or may not!) contribute to differences in your outcome variable. The downside to random sampling is that the variability of the outcomes within your treatment groups will tends to increase. As we will see when we get to statistical inference, large variability within groups will make it less likely that any statistical difference between the treatment groups will be observed.

Demonstrate the benefits of random sampling as a method to control for extraneous factors.

The study reported by Cox et al included 60 obese men between the ages of 20 and 50. A reasonable experimental design decision would suggest that the 60 subjects be split into the two treatment groups such that both groups had 30 subjects for a balanced design. Subjects who met all of the research criteria and who had signed the informed consent agreement are to be placed into the treatment groups and there are many ways that group assignment could be accomplished. One possibility, the researchers could assign the first 30 people that came into the lab to the Vigorous exercise group and the remaining 30 then would be assigned to the Light exercise group. Intuitively I think we would all agree that this is a suspect way to design an experiment, but more importantly, why shouldn’t you use this convenient method?

Just for argument’s sake, imagine that their subjects came in one at a time, and, coincidentally, they did so by age. The first person was age 21, the second was 22, and so on up to the 30th person who was 50. Then, the next group came in, again, coincidentally in order of ascending age. If you calculate the simple average age for each group you will find that they are identical (35.5 years). On the surface, this looks like we have controlled for age: both treatment groups have subjects that are the same age. A second option is to sort the subjects into the two treatment groups so that a 21 year old is in Group A, and the other 21 year old is in Group B, and so on. Again, the average age of Group A subjects and of Group B subjects would be the same and therefore controlled with respect to any covariation between age and change in blood pressure. However, there are other variables that may covary with blood pressure, and by controlling one, we would need to control the others. Randomization provides a better way.

I will demonstrate how randomization tends to distribute the values in such a way that the groups will not differ appreciably for the nuisance variables like age and BMI differences and, by extension, any other covariable. The R work is attached following the Reading list. The take-home message: After randomly selecting subjects for assignment to the treatment groups, the apparent differences between Group A and Group B for both age and BMI are substantially diminished. No attempt to match by age and by BMI is necessary. The numbers are shown in the table and then in two graphics (Fig 1, Fig 2) derived from the table.

Table 1. Mean age and BMI for subjects in two treatment groups A and B where subjects were assigned randomly or by convenience to treatment groups.

Group	Random assignment of subjects to treatment groups	Convenience assignment of subjects to treatment groups
A	35.2	28
B	35.8	43
A	32.49	28.99
B	32.87	37.37

Just for emphasis, the means from Table 1 are presented in the next two figures (Fig 1 and Fig 2).

Figure 1. Age of subjects by groups (A = blue, B = red) with and without randomized assignment of subjects to treatment groups.

Figure 2. BMI of subjects by groups (A = blue, B = red) with and without randomized assignment of subjects to treatment groups.

Note that the apparent difference between A and B for BMI disappear once proper randomization of subjects was accomplished. In conclusion, a random sample is an approach to experimental design that helps to reduce the influence other factors may have on the outcome variable (eg, change in blood pressure after 16 weeks of exercise). In principle, randomization should protect a project because, on average, these influences will be represented randomly for the two groups of individuals. This reasoning extends to unmeasured and unknown causal factors as well.

This discussion was illustrated by random assignment of subjects to treatment groups. The same logic applies to how to select subjects from a population. If the sampling is large enough, then a random sample of subjects will tend to be representative of the variability of the outcome variable for the population and representative also of the additional and unmeasured cofactors that may contribute to the variability of the outcome variable.

What about observational studies? How does randomization work?

However, if you do cannot obtain a random sample, then conclusions reached may be sample-specific, biased. …perhaps the group of individuals that likes to exercise on treadmills just happens to have a higher cardiac output because they are larger than the individuals that like to exercise on bicycles. This nonrandom sample, an example of confounding where an extraneous or nuisance variable, body size, is associated with both the independent variable (exercise preference) and the dependent variable (cardiac output), will bias your results and can lead to incorrect interpretation of results.

Alternatively, perhaps a researcher elects to study the cardiac output of treadmill users versus bicycle users. The researcher sets up their testing station inside a gym’s powerlifting zone, where the largest individuals in the gym hang out. Inevitably because of this choice, the researcher over recruits larger individuals into the treadmill group, leading to a falsely elevated average cardiac output for treadmill users. This is an example of ascertainment bias — the sample is not representative of all treadmill users at the gym.

Random sampling is CRUCIAL in epidemiology, opinion survey work, most aspects of health, drug studies, medical work with human subjects. It’s difficult and very costly to do… so most surveys you hear about, especially polls reported from Internet sites, are NOT conducted using random sampling (included in the catch-all term “probability sampling“)!! As an aside, most opinion survey work involves complex sample designs involving some form of geographic clustering (eg, all phone numbers in a city, random sample among neighborhoods).

Random sampling is the ideal if generalizations are to be made about data, but strictly random sampling is not appropriate for all kinds of studies. Consider the question of whether or not EMF exposure is a risk factor for developing cancer (Pool 1990). These kinds of studies are observational: at least in principle, we wouldn’t expect that housing and therefore exposure to EMF is manipulated (cf. discussion Walker 2009). Thus, epidemiologists will look for patterns: if EMF exposure is linked to cancer, then more cases of cancer should occur near EMF sources compared to areas distant from EMF sources. Thus, the hypothesis is that an association between EMF exposure and cancer occurs non-randomly, whereas cancers occurring in people not exposed to EMF are random. Unfortunately, clusters can occur even if the process that generates the data is random.

Compare Graph A and Graph B (Fig 3). One of the graphs resulted from a random process and the other was generated by a non-random process. Note that the claim can be rephrased about the probability that each grid has a point, eg, it’s like Heads/Tails of 16 tosses of a coin. We can see clusters of points in Graph B; Graph A lacks obvious clusters of points — there is a point in each of the 16 cells of the grid. Although both patterns could be random, the correct answer in this case is Graph B.

Figure 3. An example of clustering resulting from a random sampling process (Graph B). In contrast, Graph A was generated so that a point was located within each grid.

Hard to tell — and truth be told, random process could generate either one. To convince you, Figure 4 reveals the grouping that was done for Group A, in contrast with Group B which was drawn with the truly random process.

Figure 4. Same graphs as Figure 3, but with ellipses around the grouped data (hard to tell, but the centroids are the larger points). 

Implications for sampling

The graphic below shows the transmission grid in the continental United States (Fig 5). How would one design a random sampling scheme overlaid against the obviously heterogeneous distribution of the grid itself? If a random sample was drawn, chances are good that no population would be near a grid in many of the western states, but in contrast, the likelihood would increase in the eastern portion of the United States where the population and therefore transmission grid is more densely placed.

Figure 5. Map of electrical transmission grid for continental United States of America. Image source https://openinframap.org/#3/24.61/-101.16

For example, you want to test whether or not EMF affects human health, and your particular interest is in whether or not there exists a relationship between living close to high voltage towers or transfer stations and brain cancer. How does one design a study, keeping in mind the importance of randomization for our ability to generalize and assign causation?  This is a part of epidemiology which strives to detect whether clusters of disease are related to some environmental source. It is an extremely difficult challenge. For the record, no clear link to EMF and cancer has been found, but reports do appear from time to time (eg, report on a cluster of breast cancer in men working in office adjacent to high EMF, Milham 2004).

 

Questions

1. Use the sample() with and without replacement on the object (see help with R below)

fruit <- c("apple", "banana", "grape", "kiwi", "pear", "pineapple", "tomato")

a) set of 3

b) set of 4

2. Confirm the claim by calculating the probability of Graph A result vs Graph B result (see R script below).

Quiz Chapter 5.5

Importance of randomization in experimental design

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

---

R code!

Code you type is shown in red; responses or output from R are shown in blue. Recall that statements preceded by the hash # are comments and are not read by R (ie, no need for you to type them).

First, create some variables. Vectors aa and bb contain my two age sequences.

 aa = seq(21,50)
 bb = seq(21,50)

Second, append vector bb to the end of vector aa

 age = append(aa,bb)
 age           #submit the vector (variable) name to print the records for verification - looks good! 
  [1] 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
 [48] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Third, get the average age for the first group (the aa sequence)  and for the second group (the bb sequence). Lots of ways to do this, I made a two subsets from the combined age variable; could have just as easily taken the mean of aa and the mean of bb (same thing!).

 A = age[1:30]
 mean(A)
 [1] 35.5
 B = age[31:60]
 mean(B)
 [1] 35.5

Fourth, start building a data frame, then sort it by age. Will be adding additional variables to this data frame

 ex.random = data.frame(age)
 AO.all = sort(ex.random$age)
 AO.age           #submit the vector (variable) name to print the records for verification - looks good! 
  [1] 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44
 [48] 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50

Fifth, divide the variable again into two subsets of 30 and get the averages

 AO = AO.age[1:30]
 AO
  [1] 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35
 mean(AO)
 [1] 28 
 BO = AO.age[31:60]
 BO
  [1] 36 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50
 mean(BO)
 [1] 43

Sixth, create an index variable, random order without replacement

 rand.index = sample(1:60,60,replace=F)

Add the new variable to our existing data frame, then print it to check that all is well

 ex.random$rand = rand.index
 ex.random
    age rand
 1   21   43
 2   22   15
 3   23   17
 4   24   35
 5   25   19
 6   26   18
 7   27   22
 8   28   31
 9   29   12
 10  30   44
 11  31   24
 12  32    5
 13  33    2
 14  34   50
 15  35   23
 16  36   20
 17  37   41
 18  38   56
 19  39   36
 20  40    8
 21  41   45
 22  42   38
 23  43   42
 24  44   46
 25  45   16
 26  46   21
 27  47   28
 28  48   10
 29  49   32
 30  50   54
 31  21   57
 32  22   51
 33  23   27
 34  24   40
 35  25   14
 36  26   48
 37  27   26
 38  28   58
 39  29    9
 40  30   11
 41  31    4
 42  32   52
 43  33   37
 44  34   53
 45  35    6
 46  36   34
 47  37   39
 48  38    7
 49  39    1
 50  40   47
 51  41   33
 52  42   60
 53  43   49
 54  44   30
 55  45   29
 56  46   55
 57  47   13
 58  48    3
 59  49   25
 60  50   59

Seventh, select for our first treatment group the first 30 subjects from the randomized index. There are again other ways to do this, but sorting on the index variable means that the subject order will be change too.

 AR.age = ex.random[order(ex.random$rand),]     #created a new data frame to distinguish it from the presorted version "ex.random"

Print the new data frame to confirm that the sorting worked. It did. we can see that the rows have been sorted by ascending order based on the index variable.

 AR.age
    age rand
 49  39    1
 13  33    2
 58  48    3
 41  31    4
 12  32    5
 45  35    6
 48  38    7
 20  40    8
 39  29    9
 28  48   10
 40  30   11
 9   29   12
 57  47   13
 35  25   14
 2   22   15
 25  45   16
 3   23   17
 6   26   18
 5   25   19
 16  36   20
 26  46   21
 7   27   22
 15  35   23
 11  31   24
 59  49   25
 37  27   26
 33  23   27
 27  47   28
 55  45   29
 54  44   30
 8   28   31
 29  49   32
 51  41   33
 46  36   34
 4   24   35
 19  39   36
 43  33   37
 22  42   38
 47  37   39
 34  24   40
 17  37   41
 23  43   42
 1   21   43
 10  30   44
 21  41   45
 24  44   46
 50  40   47
 36  26   48
 53  43   49
 14  34   50
 32  22   51
 42  32   52
 44  34   53
 30  50   54
 56  46   55
 18  38   56
 31  21   57
 38  28   58
 60  50   59
 52  42   60

Eighth, create our new treatment groups, again of n = 30 each, then get the means ages for each group.

 AR = AR.age$age[1:30]
 mean(AR)
 [1] 35.16667
 AR2 = AR.all$all[31:60]
 mean(AR2)
 [1] 35.83333

Get the minimum and maximum values for the groups

 min(AR)
 [1] 22
 min(AR2)
 [1] 21
 max(AR)
 [1] 49
 max(AR2)
 [1] 50

Ninth, create a BMI variable drawn from a normal distribution with coefficient of variation equal to 20%. The first group with we will call cc

 cc = rnorm(n=30,m=27.5, sd=5.5)          #mean was 27.5 for this group with standard deviation of 5.5

The second group called dd

 dd = rnorm(n=30,m=37.5, sd=7.5)          #mean was 37.5 for this group with standard deviation of 7.5

Create a new variable called BMI by joining cc and dd

 BMI=append(cc,dd)
 BMI            #print out BMI to confirm. Looks good!
  [1] 27.87528 27.83250 31.88703 34.99041 24.06751 23.50952 22.57779 31.48394 31.04321 25.60258 25.41081 22.34619 34.62213 36.41348 41.17740
 [16] 20.56529 27.25238 21.85205 32.11690 32.37168 23.11314 33.29110 34.99106 38.22016 18.72105 26.22030 25.13412 27.50475 34.79361 32.81267
 [31] 47.57872 27.58428 40.17211 38.22195 26.91893 37.02784 53.72671 34.94727 30.35245 38.32571 40.52111 36.15627 30.36592 36.20397 47.63142
 [46] 40.30846 36.47643 50.86804 43.63741 37.84994 42.82665 41.71008 28.44976 24.57906 42.37762 38.38512 35.22879 31.34063 34.02996 27.28038

Add the BMI variable to our data frame.

 ex.random$BMI = BMI
 ex.random              #Print out the revised data frame. Looks good. We now have three variables: age, the index "rand," and now BMI
    age rand      BMI
 1   21   43 27.87528
 2   22   15 27.83250
 3   23   17 31.88703
 4   24   35 34.99041
 5   25   19 24.06751
 6   26   18 23.50952
 7   27   22 22.57779
 8   28   31 31.48394
 9   29   12 31.04321
 10  30   44 25.60258
 11  31   24 25.41081
 12  32    5 22.34619
 13  33    2 34.62213
 14  34   50 36.41348
 15  35   23 41.17740
 16  36   20 20.56529
 17  37   41 27.25238
 18  38   56 21.85205
 19  39   36 32.11690
 20  40    8 32.37168
 21  41   45 23.11314
 22  42   38 33.29110
 23  43   42 34.99106
 24  44   46 38.22016
 25  45   16 18.72105
 26  46   21 26.22030
 27  47   28 25.13412
 28  48   10 27.50475
 29  49   32 34.79361
 30  50   54 32.81267
 31  21   57 47.57872
 32  22   51 27.58428
 33  23   27 40.17211
 34  24   40 38.22195
 35  25   14 26.91893
 36  26   48 37.02784
 37  27   26 53.72671
 38  28   58 34.94727
 39  29    9 30.35245
 40  30   11 38.32571
 41  31    4 40.52111
 42  32   52 36.15627
 43  33   37 30.36592
 44  34   53 36.20397
 45  35    6 47.63142
 46  36   34 40.30846
 47  37   39 36.47643
 48  38    7 50.86804
 49  39    1 43.63741
 50  40   47 37.84994
 51  41   33 42.82665
 52  42   60 41.71008
 53  43   49 28.44976
 54  44   30 24.57906
 55  45   29 42.37762
 56  46   55 38.38512
 57  47   13 35.22879
 58  48    3 31.34063
 59  49   25 34.02996
 60  50   59 27.28038

Tenth, repeat our protocol from before: Set up two groups each with 30 subjects, calculate the means for the variables and then sort by the random index and get the new group means.

 AO = ex.random$BMI[1:30]
 mean(AO)
 [1] 28.99333
 BO = ex.random$BMI[31:60]
 mean(BO)
 [1] 37.36943

All we did was confirm that the unsorted groups had mean BMI of around 27.5 and 37.5 respectively. Now, proceed to sort by the random index variable. Go ahead and create a new data frame

 AR.age = ex.random[order(ex.random$rand),]
 AR.age                 #Print out the new data frame to confirm. Looks good.
    age rand      BMI
 49  39    1 43.63741
 13  33    2 34.62213
 58  48    3 31.34063
 41  31    4 40.52111
 12  32    5 22.34619
 45  35    6 47.63142
 48  38    7 50.86804
 20  40    8 32.37168
 39  29    9 30.35245
 28  48   10 27.50475
 40  30   11 38.32571
 9   29   12 31.04321
 57  47   13 35.22879
 35  25   14 26.91893
 2   22   15 27.83250
 25  45   16 18.72105
 3   23   17 31.88703
 6   26   18 23.50952
 5   25   19 24.06751
 16  36   20 20.56529
 26  46   21 26.22030
 7   27   22 22.57779
 15  35   23 41.17740
 11  31   24 25.41081
 59  49   25 34.02996
 37  27   26 53.72671
 33  23   27 40.17211
 27  47   28 25.13412
 55  45   29 42.37762
 54  44   30 24.57906
 8   28   31 31.48394
 29  49   32 34.79361
 51  41   33 42.82665
 46  36   34 40.30846
 4   24   35 34.99041
 19  39   36 32.11690
 43  33   37 30.36592
 22  42   38 33.29110
 47  37   39 36.47643
 34  24   40 38.22195
 17  37   41 27.25238
 23  43   42 34.99106
 1   21   43 27.87528
 10  30   44 25.60258
 21  41   45 23.11314
 24  44   46 38.22016
 50  40   47 37.84994
 36  26   48 37.02784
 53  43   49 28.44976
 14  34   50 36.41348
 32  22   51 27.58428
 42  32   52 36.15627
 44  34   53 36.20397
 30  50   54 32.81267
 56  46   55 38.38512
 18  38   56 21.85205
 31  21   57 47.57872
 38  28   58 34.94727
 60  50   59 27.28038
 52  42   60 41.71008

Get the means of the new groups

 AR = AR.age$BMI[1:30]
 mean(AR)
 [1] 32.49004
 min(AR)
 [1] 18.72105
 max(AR)
 [1] 53.72671
 AR2 = AR.all$BMI[31:60]
 mean(AR2)
 [1] 33.87273
 min(AR2)
 [1] 21.85205
 max(AR2)
 [1] 47.57872

That’s all of the work!

Data set

nonrandom

X	Y
0.779	0.747
0.098	1.248
0.697	2.811
0.59	3.553
1.295	0.075
1.858	1.207
1.172	2.388
1.597	3.051
2.051	0.242
2.081	1.546
2.016	2.738
2.587	3.088
3.833	0.088
3.776	1.264
3.017	2.254
3.657	3.712

random

X1	Y1
1.157	3.203
2.407	0.62
1.033	1.946
3.676	2.866
3.57	2.703
3.056	0.685
1.568	3.355
1.041	1.753
0.643	2.295
2.884	0.687
3.53	2.591
2.838	2.431
3.945	1.518
0.34	1.64
2.45	0.386
3.921	2.976

---

Chapter 5 contents

• The basics explained
• Experiments
• Experimental and Sampling units
• Replication, Bias, and Nuisance Variables
• Clinical trials
• Importance of randomization in experimental design
• Sampling from Populations
• References and suggested readings

5.1 – Experiments

How to put an experiment together

With the background behind us, we outline a designed experiment. Readers may wish to review concepts presented previously, in

• Chapter 2.4: Experimental design and rise of statistics in medical research.
• Chapter 3.4 – Estimating parameters
• Chapter 3.5 – Statistics of error

Experiments have the following elements

1. Define a reference population.
   1. All patients with similar angina symptoms — shortness of breath, chest pain, dizziness — but who have not suffered a heart attack, or myocardial infarction (Wu et al 2017);
   2. All adult frogs in a pond near industrial waste runoff (eg, Sowers et al 2009).
2. Define sample unit from the reference population (eg, as many patients as can be screened by the physician are recruited; all frogs visible to the biologist are captured).
3. Design sampling scheme from population (eg, random sampling vs. convenience/haphazard sampling).
4. Agree on the primary outcome or endpoint to be measured and whether additional secondary outcomes are to be observed and collected.
   1. For the patients with similar symptoms, we follow
   2. For the frogs, we count adults with developmental malformations.
5. Separate the sample into groups so that comparisons can be made
   1. We may be tempted to provide the same treatment and follow the group for improvement — that is the clinically valid approach; to be an experiment, we would use random assignment of individuals to one of two groups — half will receive a placebo, half will receive a beta blocker;,
   2. The frog example doesn’t follow this scheme — the event has already occured, it’s an observational study.
6. Devise a way to exclude or distinguish from the possible explanations, or alternative hypotheses.
   1. eg, for the physician, she will record how many of her patients fail to respond to treatment;
   2. for the biologist, noting presence or absence of parasites between the normal and abnormal frog defines the groups).

A basic experimental design looks like this.

1. One treatment, with two levels (eg, a control group and an experimental group)
2. A collection of individuals recruited from a defined population, esp. by random sampling.
3. Random assignment of multiple individuals to one of the two treatment levels.
4. The treatments are applied to each individual in the study.
5. A measure of response (the primary outcome) and additional features (secondary outcomes) are recorded for each individual.

Of course, there are other considerations, and by now, students reading this text should be able to identify what is missing from the list. (See quiz questions.)

Contrast with design of observational studies

Importantly, for observational studies, no matter how sophisticated the equipment used to measure the outcome variable(s), key steps outlined above are missing. Researchers conducting observational studies do not control allocation of subjects to treatment groups (steps 4 and 3 in the two above lists, respectively). Instead, they may use case-control approaches, where individuals with (case) and without (control) the condition (eg, lung cancer) are compared with respect to some candidate risk factor (eg, smoking). Both case and control groups likely have members who smoke, but if there is an association between smoking and lung cancer, then more smokers will be in the case group compared to the control group.

A cohort study, also a form of observational study, is similar to case-control except that the outcome status is not known. A cohort study includes, in our example, smokers and non smokers who share other characteristics: age, medical history, etc. The other kind of design you will see is the cross-sectional study. Cross-sectional studies are descriptive studies, and, therefore also observational. Primary outcomes along with additional characteristics and outcomes are measured for a representative subsample, or perhaps even an entire population. Cross-sectional studies are used to absolute and relative risk rates. In ecology and evolutionary biology cross sectional studies are common, eg, comparisons of species for metabolic rate (Darveau et al 2005) or life history traits (Jennings et al 1998), and specialized statistical approaches that incorporate phylogenetic information about the species are now the hallmark of these kinds of studies.

A word on outcomes of an experiment. Experiments should be designed to address an important question. The outcomes the researcher measures should be directly related to the important question. Thus, in the design of clinical trials, researchers distinguish between primary and secondary outcomes or endpoints. In educational research the primary question is whether or not students exposed to different teaching styles (eg, lecture-style or active-learning approaches) score higher on an knowledge-content exams. The primary outcome would be the scores on the exams; many possible secondary outcomes might be collected including student’s attitudes towards the subject or perceptions on how much they have learned.

About Primary and Secondary Outcomes.

Consider a evolutionary physiology project on species differences and effects of body size on burst running speed of terrestrial lizards (eg, Bauwens et al 1995; Dohm et al 1998; Labonte et al 2024). Our independent variables, the things we believe influence running performance — and therefore we wish to control for — species, body size, core body temperature, body condition, race quality (see cited papers for these and other examples).

What do we measure? What are the likely primary vs. secondary outcomes for a this kind of project?

Primary outcomes are the direct, definitive measures of maximal locomotor performance. Examples may include

• Maximum Burst Speed: The absolute highest velocity achieved by the lizard over a short distance or time interval (eg, across a 0.5-meter interval).
• Maximum Acceleration: The highest rate of speed change during the start of the burst or during a sudden sprint increase.
• Stride Length: The physical distance covered during a single full stride cycle at maximum speed.
• Stride Frequency: The number of strides taken per second at maximum speed.

And what other measures may be of interest — secondary outcomes — those that may help explain why or how the primary performance metrics change across the independent variables. To list a few,

• Stance and Swing Duration: The individual time durations spent with feet on the ground (stance) vs. in the air (swing).
• Gait Transition Thresholds: The speed at which a lizard shifts from a walk/trot to a high-speed gallop or bipedal running (if applicable to the species).
• Fatigue Rate: The decline in burst speed across successive trials or over a sustained treadmill run.
• Trial-to-Trial Repeatability: The statistical consistency (intraclass correlation coefficient) of a lizard’s performance across multiple bursts.

In a prospective cohort study, we may track participants over time to observe how baseline factors predict the development or worsening of type 2 diabetes (eg, Gao et al 2026). Progression over a two year followup would be measured by incident clinical events or the longitudinal rate of change in biomarkers. Possible primary outcomes are

• Glycated Hemoglobin (HbA1c): A biomarker reflecting average blood glucose levels over the past 2 to 3 months (glycemic control).
• Fasting Plasma Glucose (FPG): Glucose concentration in the blood after an overnight fast (acute baseline glycemic regulation).
• T2D Complication Stage: A clinical score or categorization indicating the presence and severity of microvascular or macrovascular damage.

Secondary outcomes may include

• Fasting Lipid Profile
• C-Reactive Protein
• Body Mass Index
• Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

If one or more primary outcomes are significant, this reveals whether an intervention or exposure (like a vegan diet or income level) changes the clinical course of Type 2 Diabetes. Secondary outcomes are critical for explaining how and why it happens. Secondary outcomes provide mechanistic context.

Some caution is warranted — imagine if, after conducting the study, we find diet, age, or income did not statistically affect your primary outcome, but did significantly alter a secondary outcome (eg, improved lipid profiles). What to report? We state in your Abstract and Discussion that the study failed to meet its primary objective, and that any significant secondary findings are exploratory. We cannot claim that a diet “successfully manages diabetes progression” based solely on a secondary marker (cf discussion and suggsted guidelines in Butcher et al 2022).

Example of an experiment.

We’ll work through a familiar example. The researcher is given the task to design a study to test the efficacy in reducing tension headache symptoms by a new pain reliever. There are many possible outcomes: blurry vision, duration, frequency, nausea, need for and response to pain medication, and level of severity (Mayo Clinic). The drug is packaged in a capsule and a placebo is designed that contains all ingredients except the new drug. Forty subjects with headaches are randomly selected from a population of headache sufferers. All forty subjects sign the consent form and agree to be part of the study. The subjects also are informed that while they are participating in the research study on a new pain reliever, each subject has a 50-50 chance of receiving a placebo and not the new drug. The researcher then randomly assigns twenty of the subjects to receive the drug treatment and twenty to receive the placebo, places either a placebo pill of the treatment pill into a numbered envelope and gives the envelopes to a research partner. The partner then gives the envelopes to the patients. Both patients and the research partner are kept ignorant of the assignment to treatment.

We can summarize this most basic experimental design in a table, Table 1.

Table 1. Simple formulation of a 2X2 experiment (aka 2×2 contingency table).

where N is the total number of subjects, a is number of subjects who DID receive the treatment AND got better, c is number of subjects who DID NOT receive the treatment, but DID get better, b is number of subjects who DID receive the treatment and DID NOT get better, and d is number of subjects who DID NOT receive the treatment and DID NOT get better.

And our basic expectation is that we are testing whether or not treatment levels were associated with subjects “getting better” as measured on some scale.

One possible result of the experiment, although unlikely, all of the negative outcomes are found in the group that did not receive the treatment (Table 2).

Table 2. One possible outcome of our 2X2 experiment.

Results of an experiment probably won’t be as clear as in Table 2. Treatments may be effective, but not everyone benefits. Thus, results like Table 3 may be more typical.

Table 3. A more likely outcome of our 2X2 experiment.

Must a control group always be included in an experiment?

To be an experiment, yes. However, it is not true that the control treatment must only be applied to separate, individual subjects. For example, a common experimental design would be repeated measures of an outcome, like behavior (eg, feeding response) before and after an intervention is applied. Thus, the individual is its own control or reference point. For example, Dohm et al (2008) measured feeding and locomotor behavior of adult toads (Rhinella marina, formerly Bufo marinus) prior to and after ozone exposure. We concluded that a single 4-h exposure to O₃ depressed toad feeding behavior, but had little effect on voluntary locomotor behavior. Typically, the design randomly assigns individuals to the  treatments — some individuals get the exposure first, then the control exposure second; others, again selected at random, receive the control exposure first, then the active exposure.

The within subjects design is an important method in biological research; these designs offer control for individual differences as confounding variables and require fewer participants compared to separate control group designs. This design is effective provided there is little risk of carryover effects; if the effects of a previous condition linger, then it may influence a participant’s response in subsequent conditions, confounding the results. For our study (Dohm et al 2008) we used a modified within-subjects design by employing a split plot design. We return to within-subjects designs in Chapter 14.4 – Randomized block design.

Questions

1. When I updated this page in 2020, we were in our fifth month of the coronavirus pandemic of 2019-2020. Daily it seemed, we heard news about “promising coronavirus treatments,” but no study had at the time been published that would meets our considerations for a proper experiment. However, on May 1, 2020, the FDA issued an emergency use authorization for use of the antiviral drug remdesivir (Gilead), based on early results of clinical trials reported 29 April in The Lancet (Wang et al 2020). Briefly, their study included 158 treated with does of the antiviral drug and 79 provided with a placebo control. Both groups were treated otherwise the same. Improvement over 28 days was recorded: 62 improved with Placebo and 133 improved receiving dose of remdesivir.
   1. Using the background described on this page, list the information needed to design a proper experiment. Using your list, review the work described in The Lancet article and check for evidence that the trial meets these requirements.
   2. Create a 2×2 table with the described results from The Lancet article.
2. Consider our hazel tea and copper solution experiment described in Chapter 3. The outcome variables (Tail length, tail percentage, Olive moment) are quantitative, not categorical. Create a table to display the experimental design.
3. For the migraine example, identify elements of the design that conform to the randomized control trial design described in Chapter 2.4.

Quiz Chapter 5.1

Experiments

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 5 contents

• The basics explained
• Experiments
• Experimental and Sampling units
• Replication, Bias, and Nuisance Variables
• Clinical trials
• Importance of randomization in experimental design
• Sampling from Populations
• References and suggested readings