3.5 – Statistics of error

Making sense of error in data.

This page explains how statistics of error help quantify differences between measured and true values, beginning with classical methods like standard error and confidence intervals that rely on large-sample assumptions. Related, statisticians talk about uncertainty — the quantification of doubt about a measurement. We introduce permutation-based approaches, including jackknife and bootstrap resampling, which avoid those assumptions and are especially useful with smaller or complex data sets. Observer variation (intra- and interobserver error) is also highlighted as an important source of measurement error.

Missing values are another common source of uncertainty in biological data sets. Data may be missing because of equipment failure, recording mistakes, sample loss, or biological factors that prevent a measurement from being collected. Even a small number of missing observations can influence summaries, graphs, and statistical tests, especially in smaller studies. In this chapter, we treat missing values mainly as a practical issue to identify and report during exploratory data analysis. Later, in the chapter on experimental design, we examine missing data in greater depth, including differences between random and non-random missingness, as well as approaches such as data imputation and the consequences these choices may have for interpretation.

We conclude with a discussion about confidence intervals as a measure of accuracy and emphasize proper use of significant figures to avoid overstating precision.

Statistics of error.

In statistics, error doesn’t mean mistake, an avoidable human misjudgement or oversight, eg, a typo. An error in statistics means there was a difference between the measured value and the actual value for an object. Efforts by many authors of notable classical statistics developed a large body of calculated statistics, eg, standard error the mean, which allows the user to quantify how large the error of measurement is given assumptions about the distribution of the errors. Thus, classical statistics requires user to make assumptions about the error distribution, the subject of our Chapter 6. A critical issue to understand is that these methods assume large sample sizes are available; they are called asymptotic statistics or large-sample statistics; the properties of the statistical estimates are evaluated as sample size approaches infinity.

Jackknife sampling and bootstrap sampling are permutation approaches to working with data when the Central Limit Theorem — as sample size increases, the distribution of sample means will tend to a normal distribution (see Chapter 6.7) — is unlikely to apply or, rather, we don’t wish to make that assumption (Chapter 19). The jackknife is a sampling method involving repeatedly sampling from the original data set, but each time leaving one value out. The estimator, for example, the sample mean, is calculated for each sample. The repeated estimates from the jackknife approach yield many estimates which, collected, are used to calculate the sample variance. Jackknife estimators tend to be less biased than those from classical asymptotic statistics.

Bootstrapping, and not jackknife resampling, may now be the preferred permutation approach (eg, Google Scholar search “bootstrap statistics” 36K hits; “jackknife statistics” 17K hits), but which method is best depends on qualities of the data set. Bootstrapping involves large numbers of permutations of the original data, which, in short, means we repeatedly take many samples of our data and recalculate our statistics on these sets of sampled data. We obtain statistical significance by comparing our result from the original data against how often results from our permutations on the resampled data sets exceed the originally observed results. By permutation methods, the goal is to avoid the assumptions made by large-sample statistical inference, ie, reaching conclusions about the population based on samples from the population. Since its introduction, “bootstrapping” has been shown to be superior in many — but, importantly, not all — cases for statistics of error compared to the standard, classical approach (Efron 1979, Hesterberg 2015).

There are many advocates for the permutation approaches, and, because we have computers now instead of the hand calculators our statistics ancestors used, permutation methods may be the approach you will take in your own work. However, the classical approach has its strengths — when the conditions, that is, when the assumptions of asymptotic statistics are met by the data, then the classical approaches tend to be less conservative than the permutation methods. By conservative, statisticians mean that a test performs at the level we expect it to. Thus, if the assumptions of classical statistics are met they return the correct answer more often than do the permutation tests.

Error and the observer.

Individual researchers make observations, therefore, we can talk about observer variation as a kind of error measurement. For repeated measures of the same object by an individual, we would expect the individual to return the same results. To the extent repeated measures differ, this is intraobserver error. In contrast, measures of the same object from different individuals is interobserver error. For a new instrument or measurement system, one would need to establish the reliability of the measure: confronted with the same object do researchers get the same measurement? Accounting for interobserver error applies in many fields, eg, histopathology of putative carcinoma slides (Franc et al 2003), liver biopsies for cirrhosis (Rousselet et al 2005), blood cell counts (Bacus 1973).

Confidence in estimates.

A really useful concept in statistics is the idea that you can assign how confident you are to an estimate. This is another way to speak of the accuracy of an estimate. Clearly, we have more confidence in a sample estimate for a population parameter if many observations are made. Another factor in our ability to estimate is the magnitude of observation differences. In general, the larger the differences among values from repeated trials, the less confident we will be in out estimate, unless, again, we make our estimates from a large collection of observations. These two quantities, sample size and variability, along with our level of confidence, eg, 95%, are incorporated into a statistic called the confidence interval.

We will use this concept a lot throughout the course; for now, a simple but approximate confidence interval is to use the 2 x SEM rule (as long as sample size large): twice the standard error of the mean. Take your estimate of the mean, then add (upper limit) or subtract (lower limit) twice the value of the standard error of the mean (if you recall, that’s the standard deviation divided by the square-root of the sample size).

Example. Consider five magnetic darts thrown at a dart board (28 cm diameter, height of 1.68m from the floor) from a distance of 3.15 meters (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Magnetic dart board with 5 darts. Click image to view full sized image.

The distance in centimeters (cm) between where each of the five darts landed on the board compared to the bullseye is reported in (Table 1),

Table 1. Results of five darts thrown at a target (Figure 2)*

* distance in centimeters from the center. 

How precise was the dart thrower? We’ll use the coefficient of variation as a measure of precision. Second, how accurate were the throws? Use R to calculate

darts = c(7.5, 3.0, 1.0, 2.7, 7.4)
#use the coefficient of variation to describe precision of the throws
coefVar = 100*(sd(darts)/mean(darts)); coefVar
[1] 68.46141

Confidence Interval to describe accuracy.

For a game of darts, the true value would be a distance of zero — all bullseyes. We need to calculate the standard error of the mean (SEM), then, we calculate the confidence interval around the sample mean.

#Calculate the SEM
SEM <- sd(darts)/sqrt(length(darts)); SEM
[1] 1.322649
#now, get the lower and upper limit, subtract from the mean
confidence <- c(mean(darts)-2*SEM, mean(darts), mean(darts)+2*SEM); confidence
[1] 1.674702, 4.320000, 6.965298

The mean was 4.3 cm, therefore to get the lower limit of the interval subtract 2.65 (2*SEM = 2.645298) from the mean; for the upper limit add 2.65 to the mean. Thus, we report our approximate confidence interval as (1.7, 7.0), and we read this as saying we are about 95% confident the population value is between these two limits. Five is a very small sample number, so we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that our approximate confidence interval would be less than adequate. In statistical terms, we would use the t-distribution, and not the normal distribution, to make our confidence interval in cases like this.

We made a quick calculation of the confidence interval; we can get make this calculation by hand by incorporating the t distribution. We need to know the degrees of freedom, which in this case is 4 (n – 1, where n = 5). We look up critical value of t at 5% (to get our 95% confidence interval), t = 2.78. Subtract for lower limit t*SEM and add for upper limit t*SEM to the sample mean for the 95% confidence interval.

We can get help from R, by using the one-sample t-test with a test against the hypothesis that the true mean is equal to zero. Among a variety of output we will introduce later (see Chapter 8 and 10), the confidence interval is reported (yellow highlight),

#make an attach a data frame object
Ddarts <- data.frame(darts)
t.test(darts,mu=0)
One Sample t-test
data: darts
t = 3.2662, df = 4, p-value = 0.0309
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.6477381 7.9922619
sample estimates:
mean of x 
 4.32

t.test uses the function qt(), which provides the quantile function. To recreate the 95% CI without the additional baggage output from the t.test, we would simply write

#upper limit
mean(darts)+ qt(0.975,df=4)*sd(darts)/sqrt(5)

#lower limit
mean(darts)+ qt(0.025, df = 4, lower.tail=TRUE)*sd(darts)/sqrt(5)

where sd(darts)/sqrt(5) is the standard error of the mean.

Or, alternatively, download and take advantage of a small package called Rmisc (not to be confused with the RcmdrMisc package) and use the function CI

library(Rmisc)
CI(darts)
     upper     mean     lower 
7.9922619 4.3200000 0.6477381

The advantage of using the CI() command from the package Rmisc is pretty clear; I don’t have to specify the degrees of freedom or the standard error of the mean. By default, CI reports the 95% confidence interval. we can specify any interval simply by adding to the command. For example, 

CI(darts, ci=0.90)

reports upper and lower limits for the 90% confidence interval.

Try it. On your own, get the 90% confidence interval and the 99% confidence intervals for our dart example. Compare to the 95% confidence interval — what do you conclude about “confidence” in our estimate from 90% to 99%?

Confidence intervals from p-values.

And finally, it is not unusual for a report to provide summary statistics, differences between means (ie, effect size), and p-values (orange highlight), but not report confidence intervals. We discuss p-values and the concept of statistical significance beginning in Chapter 8. But for now, we show how to calculate approximate confidence intervals from the p-value. This may be of use for conducting meta-analysis (Chapter 20.15). See two helpful “how to” articles by Bland and Altman in 2011 BMJ (references listed in Chapter 3.6 – References). 

In brief, calculate the test statistic for a normal distribution (letZ), calculate a standard error, and then the lower and upper limits for the 95% confidence interval. We illustrate use of the calculator formulas with the dart example, the p-value was 0.0309; the estimate was 4.32.

R code

letZ = (-0.862 + sqrt(0.743 - 2.404*log(0.0309, base = exp(1)))) = 2.154903
letSE = 4.32/letZ = 2.00473
1.96*letSE = 3.929271 # Add for upper and subtract for lower

The lower limit is 0.39 (4.32 – 3.929271) and the upper limit is 8.25 (4.32 + 3.929271). Although in the ballpark, these calculated estimates are wider than the confidence interval estimated by the t.test command. Small sample size, n = 5, is to blame — the accuracy of these methods, based on asymptotic statistical estimation approaches, assumes the law of large numbers applies.

Significant figures.

And finally, we should respect significant figures, the number of digits which have meaning. Our data were measured to the nearest tenth of a centimeter, or two significant figures. Therefore, if we report the confidence interval as (0.6477381, 7.9922619), then we imply a false level of precision, unless we also report our random sampling error of measurement.

R has a number of ways to manage output. One option would be to set number of figures globally with the options() function — all values reported by R would hold for the entire session. For example, options(digits=3) would report all numbers to three significant figures. Instead, I prefer to use signif() function, which allows us to report just the values we wish and does not change reporting behavior for the entire session.

signif(CI(darts),2)
upper  mean lower 
 8.00  4.30  0.65

The R function signif() applies rounding rules. We apply rounding rules when required to report estimates to appropriate levels of precision. Rounding procedures are used to replace a number with a simplified approximation. Wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of rounding rules. Notable rules include 

• directed rounding to an integer, eg, rounding up or down
• rounding to nearest integer, eg, round half up (down) if the number ends with 5
• randomly rounding to an integer, eg, stochastic rounding.

With the exception of stochastic rounding, all rounding methods impose biases on the sets of numbers. For example, the round half up method applied for numbers above 5, round down for numbers below 5 will increase the variance of the sample. In R, use round() for most of your work. If you need one of the other approaches, for example, to round up, the command is ceiling(); to round down we use floor().

When to round?

No doubt your previous math classes have cautioned you about the problems of rounding error and their influence on calculation. So, as a reminder, if reporting calls for rounding, then always round after you’ve completed your calculations, never during the calculations themselves. 

A final note about significant figures and rounding. While the recommendations about reporting statistics are easy to come by (and often very proscriptive, eg, Table 1, Cole 2015), there are other concerns. Meta-analysis, which are done by collecting information from multiple studies, would benefit if more and not fewer numbers are reported, for the very same reason that we don’t round during calculations.

Questions

1. Calculate the correct 90% and 99% confidence intervals for the dart data using the t-distribution
   • by hand
   • by one alternative method in R, demonstrated with examples in this page
2. How many significant figures should be used for the volumetric pipettor p1000? The p200? The p20 (data at end of this page)?
3. Another function, round(), can be used. Try

round(CI(darts),2)

1. • and report the results: vary the significant figures from 1 to 10 (signif() will take digits up to 22).
   • See any output differences between signif() and round()? Don’t forget to take advantage of R help pages (eg, enter ?round at the R prompt) and see Wikipedia.
2. Compare rounding by signif() and round() for the number 0.12345. Can you tell which rounding method the two functions use? 
3. Calculate the coefficient of variation (CV) for each of the three volumetric pipettors from the data at end of this page. Rank the CV from smallest to largest. Which pipettor had the smallest CV and would therefore be judged the most precise? 
4. (data provided at end of this page, click here).
5. Standards distinguish between within run precision and between run precision of a measurement instrument (see Chapter 16.5 – Instrument reliability and validity). The data in Table 1 were all recorded within 15 minutes by one operator. What kind pf precision was measured?
6. Calculate the standard error of the means for each of the three pipettors from the data
7. (data provided at end of this page, click here).
8. Calculate the approximate confidence interval using the 2SE rule and judge which of the three pipettors is the most accurate (narrowest confidence interval)
   • Repeat, but this time apply your preferred R method for obtaining confidence intervals.
   • Compare approximate and R method confidence intervals. How well did the approximate method work?
9. Return to the dart example, but now assume the p-value was p = 0.003 and again for p = 0.0003. Estimate the 95% confidence interval for each case; the difference remains 4.32. How does the change in p-value, from 0.03 to 0.0003 — a two orders of magnitude difference — affect the estimates for the confidence interval (hint: describe the width of the CI)?

Quiz Chapter 3.5

Statistics of error

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Data sets

Pipette calibration

Chapter 3 continues

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

12.2 – One way ANOVA

Introduction

In ANalysis Of VAriance, or ANOVA for short, we likewise have tools to test the null hypothesis of no difference between between categorical independent variables — often called factors when there’s just a few levels to keep track of — and a single, dependent response variable. But now, the response variable is quantitative, not qualitative like the tests.

Analysis of variance, ANOVA, is such an important statistical test in biology that we will take the time to “build it” from scratch. We begin by reminding you of where you’ve been with the material.

We already saw an example of this null hypothesis. When there’s only one factor (but with two or more levels), we call the analysis of means and “one-way ANOVA.” In the independent sample t-test, we tested whether two groups had the same mean. We made the connection between the confidence interval of the difference between the sample means and whether or not it includes zero (ie, no difference between the means). In ANOVA, we extend this idea to a test of whether two or more groups have the same mean. In fact, if you perform an ANOVA on only two groups, you will get the exact same answer as the independent two-sample t-test, although they use different distributions of critical values (t for the t-test, F for the ANOVA — a nice little fact for you square the t-test statistic, you’ll get the F-test statistic: ).

Let’s say we have an experiment where we’ve looked at the effect of different three different calorie levels on weight change in middle-aged men.

I’ve created a simulated dataset which we will use in our ANOVA discussions. The data set is available at the end of this page (scroll down or click here).

We might graph the mean weight changes ( SEM); Below are two possible outcomes of our experiment (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Hypothetical results of an experiment, box plots. Left, no difference among groups; Right, large differences among groups.

As statisticians and scientists, we would first calculate an overall or grand mean for the entire sample of observations; we know this as the sample mean whose symbol is . But this overall mean is made up of the average of the sample means. If the null hypothesis is true, then the all of the sample means all estimate the overall mean. Put another way, being a member of a treatment group doesn’t matter, ie, there is no systematic effect, all differences among subjects are due to random chance.

The hypotheses among are three groups or treatment levels then are:

Null that there are no differences among the group means. And the alternative hypotheses include any (or all) of the following possibilities

or maybe

or… have we covered all possible alternate outcomes among three groups?

In either case, we could use one-way ANOVA to test for “statistically significant differences.”

Three important terms you’ll need for one-way ANOVA

FACTOR: We have one factor of interest. For example, a factor of interest might be

• Diet fed to hypertensive subjects (men and women)
• Distribution of coral reef sea cucumber species in archipelagos
• Antibiotic drug therapy for adolescents with Acne vulgaris (click see Webster 2002 for review).

Gender <- c("Gender non-conforming", "Men", "Non-binary", "Transgender", "Women", "Declined"); Gender
[1] "Gender non-conforming" "Men" "Non-binary" "Transgender" 
[5] "Women" "Declined"

is.factor(Gender)
[1] FALSE

LEVELS: We can have multiple levels (2 or more) within the single factor. Some examples of levels for the Factors listed:

• Three diets (DASH), diet rich in fruits & vegetables, control diet)
• Five archipelagos (Hawaiian Islands, Line Islands, Marshal Islands, Bonin Islands, and Ryukyu Islands)
• Five antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, erythromycin, doxycycline, minocycline).

RESPONSE: There is one outcome or measurement variable. This variable must be quantitative (ie, on the ratio or interval scale). Continuing our examples then

• Reduction in systolic pressure
• Numbers of individual sea cucumbers in a plot
• number of microcomedo.

The response variable can be just about anything we can measure, but because ANOVA is a parametric test, the response variable must be normally distributed!

Note on experimental design

As we discuss ANOVA, keep in mind we are talking about analyzing results from an experiment. Understanding statistics, and in particular ANOVA, informs how to plan an experiment. The basic experimental design is called a completely randomized experimental design, or CDR, where treatments are assigned to experimental units at random.

In this experimental design, subjects (experimental units) must be randomly assigned to each of these levels of the factor. That is, each individual should have had the same probability of being found in any one of the levels of the factor. The design is complete because randomization is conducted for all levels, all factors.

Thinking about how you would describe an experiment with three levels of some treatment, we would have

Table 1. Summary statistics of three levels for some ratio scale response variable.

ANOVA sources of variation

ANOVA works by partitioning total variability about the means (the grand mean, the group means). We will discuss the multiple samples and how the ANOVA works in terms of the sources of variation. There are two “sources” of variation that can occur:

• Within Group Variation
• Among Groups Variation

So let’s look first at the variability within groups, also called the Within Group Variation.

Consider and experiment to see if DASH diet reduces systolic blood pressure in USA middle-aged men and women with hypertension (Moore et al 2001). After eight weeks we have

We get the corrected sum of squares, SS, for within group

and the degrees of freedom, DF, for within groups

where i is the identity of the groups,  is the individual observations within group i, is the group i mean, n_i is the sample size within each group, N is the total sample size of all subjects for all groups, and k is the number of groups.

Importantly, this value is also referred to as “error sums of squares” in ANOVA. It’s importance is as follows — In our example, the within group variability would be zero if and only if all subjects within the same diet lost exactly the same amount of weight. This is hardly ever the case of course in a real experiment. Because there are almost always some other unknown factors or measurement error that affect the response variable, there will be some unknown variation among individuals who received the same treatment (within the same group). Thus, the error variance will generally be larger than zero.

The first point to consider: your ANOVA will never result in statistical differences among the groups if the error variance is greater than the second type of variability, the variability between groups.

The second type of variability in ANOVA is that due to the groups or treatments. Individuals given a calorie-restricted diet will lose some weight; individuals allowed to eat a calorie-rich diet likely will gain weight, therefore there will be variability (a difference) due to the treatment. So we can calculate the variability among groups. We get the corrected sum of squares for among groups

and the degrees of freedom for among groups

where i is the identity of the groups, is the grand mean as defined in Measures of Central Tendency (Chapter 3.1), is the group i mean, n_i is the sample size within each group, N is the total sample size of all subjects for all groups, and k is the number of groups.

The sums of squares here is simply subtracting the mean of each population from the overall mean.

• If the Factor is not important in explaining the variation among individuals then all the population means will be similar and the sums of squares among populations would be small.
• If the Factor is important in explaining some of the variation among the individuals then all the population means will NOT be the same and the sums of squares among populations would be large.

Finally, we can identify the total variation in the entire experiment. We have the total sum of squares.

Thus, the insight of ANOVA is that variation in the dataset may be attributed to a portion explained by differences among the groups and differences among individual observations within each group. The inference comes from recognizing that if the among group effect is greater than the within group effect, then there will be a difference due to the treatment levels.

Mean squares

To decide whether the variation associated with the among group differences are greater than the within group variation, we calculate ratios of the sums of squares. These are called Mean Squares or MS for short. The ratio of the Mean Squares is called F, the test statistic for ANOVA.

For the one-way ANOVA we will have two Mean Squares  and one F, tested with degrees of freedom for both the numerator , and denominator ).

The Mean Square for (among) groups is

The Mean Square for error is

And finally, the value for F, the test statistic for ANOVA, is

Worked example with R

A factor with three levels, A, B, and C

group <- c("A", "A", "A", "B", "B", "B", "C", "C", "C")

and their responses, simulated

response <- c(10.8, 11.8, 12.8, 6.5, 7, 8, 3.8, 2.8, 3)

We create a data frame

all <- data.frame(group, response)

Of course, you could place the data into a worksheet and then import the worksheet into R. Regardless, we now have our dataset.

Now, call the ANOVA function, aov, and assign the results to an object (eg, Model.1)

Model.1 <- aov(response ~ group, data=all)

Now, visualize the ANOVA table

summary(Model.1)

and the output from R, the ANOVA table, is shown below

Table 2. Output from aov() command, the ANOVA table, for the “Difference” outcome variable.

           Df   Sum Sq    Mean Sq   F value       Pr(>F) 
group       2   111.16      55.58     89.49    0.0000341 ***
Residuals   6     3.73       0.62
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

Let’s take the ANOVA table one row at a time

• The first row has subject headers defining the columns.
• The second row of the table “groups” contains statistics due to group, and provides the comparisons among groups.
• The third row, “Residuals” is the error, or the differences within groups.

Moving across the columns, then, for each row, we have in turn,

• the degrees of freedom (there were 3 groups, therefore 2 DF for group),
• the Sums of Squares, the Mean Squares,
• the value of F, and finally,
• the P-value.

R provides a helpful guide on the last line of the ANOVA summary table, the “Signif[icance] codes,” which highlights the magnitude of the P-value.

What to report? ANOVA problems can be much more complicated than the simple one-way ANOVA introduced here. For complex ANOVA problems, report the ANOVA table itself! But for the one-way ANOVA it would be sufficient to report the test statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the p-value, as we have in previous chapters (eg, t-test, chi-square, etc.). Thus, we would report:

F = 89.49, df = 2 and 6, p = 0.0000341

where F = 89.49 is the test statistic, df = 2 (degrees of freedom for the among group mean square) and 6 (degrees of freedom for the within group mean square), and p = 0.0000341 is the p-value.

In Rcmdr, the appropriate command for the one-way ANOVA is simply

Rcmdr: Statistics → Means

Figure 2. Screenshot Rcmdr select one-way ANOVA.

which brings up a simple dialog. R Commander anticipates factor (Groups) and Response variable. Optional, choose Pairwise comparisons of means for post-hoc test (Tukey’s) and, if you do not want to assume equal variances (see Chapter 13), select Welch F-test.

Figure 3. Screenshot Rcmdr select one-way ANOVA options.

Questions

1. Review the example ANOVA Table and confirm the following

• How many levels of the treatment were there?
• How many sampling units were there?
• Confirm the calculation of and  using the formulas contained in the text.
• Confirm the calculation of F using the formula contained in the text.
• The degrees of freedom for the F statistic in this example were 2 and 6 (F_2,6). Assuming a two-tailed test with Type I error rate of 5%, What is the critical value of the F distribution (see Appendix 20.4)

2. Repeat the one-way ANOVA using the simulated data, but this time, calculate the ANOVA problem for the “No.difference” response variable.

3. Leaf lengths from three strains of Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown in common garden are shown in Fig 2. Data are provided for you in the following R script.

arabid <- c("wt","wt","wt","AS1","AS1","AS1","AS2","AS2","AS2")
leaf <- c(4.909,5.736,5.108,6.956,5.809,6.888,4.768,4.209,4.065)
leaves <- data.frame(arabid,leaf)

• Write out a null and alternative hypotheses
• Conduct a test of the null hypothesis by one-way ANOVA
• Report the value of the test statistic, the degrees of freedom, and the P-value
• Do you accept or reject the null hypothesis? Explain your choice.

Figure 4. Box plot of lengths of leaves of a 10-day old plant from on of three strains of Arabidopsis thaliana.

4. Return to your answer to question 7 from Chapter 12.1 and review your answer and modify as appropriate to correct your language to that presented here about factors and levels.

5. Conduct the one-way ANOVA test on the Comet assay data presented question 7 from Chapter 12.1. Data are copied for your convenience to end of this page. Obtain the ANOVA table and report the value of the test statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-value.
a. Based on the ANOVA results, do you accept or reject the null hypothesis? Explain your choice.

Quiz Chapter 12.2

One-way ANOVA

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Data used in this page

Difference, no difference

Table 12.2 Difference or No Difference

Comet assay, antioxidant properties of tea

Data presented in Chapter 12.1

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

8.3 – Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing

Introduction

Understanding the relationship between sampling distributions, probability distributions, and hypothesis testing is the crucial concept in the NHST — Null Hypothesis Significance Testing — approach to inferential statistics. is crucial, and many introductory text books are excellent here. I will add some here to their discussion, perhaps with a different approach, but the important points to take from the lecture and text are as follows.

Our motivation in conducting research often culminates in the ability (or inability) to make claims like:

1. “Total cholesterol greater than 185 mg/dl increases risk of coronary artery disease.”
2. “Average height of US men aged 20 is 70 inches (1.78 m).”
3. “Species of amphibians are disappearing at unprecedented rates.”

Lurking beneath these statements of “fact” for populations (just what IS the population for #1, for #2, and for #3?) is the understanding that not ALL members of the population were recorded.

How do we go from our sample to the population we are interested in? Put another way — How good is our sample? We’ve talked about how “biostatistics” can be generalized as sets of procedures you use to make inferences about what’s happening in populations. These procedures include:

• Have an interesting question
• Experimental design (Observational study? Experimental study?)
• Sampling from populations (Random? Haphazard?)
• Hypotheses: H_O and H_A
• Estimate parameters (characterize the population)
• Tests of hypotheses (inferences)

We have control of each of these — we choose what to study, we design experiments to test our hypotheses…We have already introduced these topics (Chapters 6 – 8).

We also obtain estimates of parameters, and inferential statistics applies to how we report our descriptive statistics (Chapter 3). Estimates of parameters like the sample mean and sample standard deviation can be assessed for accuracy and precision (eg, confidence intervals).

Sampling distribution

Imagine drawing a sample of 30 from a population, calculating the sample mean for a variable (eg, systolic blood pressure), then calculating a second sample mean after drawing a new sample of 30 from the same population. Repeat, accumulating one estimate of the mean, over and over again. What will be the shape of this distribution of sample means? The Central Limit Theorem states that the shape will be a normal distribution, regardless of whether or not the population distribution was normal, as long as the sample size is large (ie, Law of Large Numbers). We alluded to this concept when we introduced discrete and continuous distributions (Chapter 6).

It’s this result from theoretical statistics that allows us to calculate the probability of an event from a sample without actually carrying out repeated sampling or measuring the entire population.

A worked example

To demonstrate the CLT we want R to help us generate many samples from a particular distribution and calculate the same statistic on each sample. We could make a for loop, but the replicate() function provides a simpler framework.  We’ll sample from the chi-square distribution. You should extend this example to other distributions on your own, see Question 5 below.

Generate x replicate samples (eg, x = 10, 100, 1000, one million) of 30 each from chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom, test the distribution against null hypothesis (assume normal distributed, eg, Shapiro-Wilk test, see Chapter 13.3), then make a histogram (Chapter 4.2), like Figure 1 or Figure 2.

x.10 <- replicate(10, {
my.mean <- rchisq(30, 1)
mean(my.mean)
})

normalityTest(~x.10, test="shapiro.test")
hist(x.10, col="orange")

Result from R

Shapiro-Wilk normality test

data: x.10
W = 0.87016, p-value = 0.1004

Figure 1. means of ten replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1.

Modify the code to draw 100 samples, we get Fig 2.

Figure 2. means of 100 replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1. Results from Shapiro-Wilks test: W = 0.97426, p-value = 0.04721.

And finally, modify the code to draw one million samples, we get Figure 3.

Figure 3. means of one million replicate samples drawn at random from chi-square distribution, df = 1. Normality test will fail to run, sample size of 5000 limit.

How to apply sampling distribution to hypothesis testing

First, a reminder of some definitions.

Estimate = we will always (almost) concern ourselves with how good our sample mean (such values are called estimates) is relative to the population mean, the thing we really want, but can only hope to get an estimate of.

Accuracy = how close to the true value is our measure?

Precision = how repeatable is our measure?

How can we tell if we have a good estimate? We want an estimate with an evaluation for accuracy and for precision. The sampling error provides an assessment of precision, whereas the confidence interval provides a statement of accuracy. We need an estimate of the sampling error for the statistic,

Sample standard error of the mean

We introduced sample error of the mean in section 3.4 of Chapter 3. Everything we measure can have a corresponding statement about how accurate (sampling error) is our estimate! First, we begin by asking, “how accurate is the mean that we estimate from a sample of a population?” How do we answer this? We could prove it in the mathematical sense of proof (and people have and do) OR we can use the computer to help. We’ll try this approach in a minute.

What we will show relates to the standard error of the population mean (SEM) or

, whose equation is shown below.

or equivalently, from the standard deviation we have

Note that the SEM takes the variance and divides through by the sample size. In general, then, the larger the sample size, the smaller the “error” around the mean. As we work through the different statistical tests, t-tests, analysis of variance, and related, you will notice that the test statistic is calculated as a ratio between a difference or comparison divided by some form of an error measurement. This is to remind you that “everything is variable.”

A note on standard deviation (SD) and standard error of the mean (SEM): SD estimates the variability of a sample of X_i‘s whereas SEM estimates the variability of a sample of means.

Let’s return to our thought problem and see how to demonstrate a solution. First, what is the population? Second, can we get the true population mean?

One way, a direct (but impossible?) approach would be to measure it — get all of the individuals in a population and measure them, then calculate the population mean. Then, we could compare our original sample mean against the true mean and see how close it was. This can be accomplished in some limited cases. For example, the USA conducts a census of her population every ten years, a procedure which costs billions of dollars. We can then compare samples from the different states or counties to the USA mean. And these statistics are indeed available via the census.gov website. But even the census uses sampling — individuals are randomly selected to answer more questions and from this sample trends in the population are inferred.

So, sampling from populations is the way to go for most questions we will encounter. The procedures we will use to show how a sample mean relates to the population mean are general and may be used to show how any estimate of a variable (sample mean and sample standard deviation, etc.), relates to properties of a parameter. We’ll get to the other issues, but for now, think about sample size.

Sampling from populations is necessary and inevitable, and, to a certain extent, under your control. But how many individuals do we need? The quick answer is for me to direct your attention to the equation for the SEM. Can you see in that ratio the secret to obtaining more precise estimates? There are many ways to approach this question, but let’s use the tools from last time, those based on properties of a normal distribution.

If we can view the sampling as having come from a population at least approximately normally distributed for our variable, then we can now examine empirically the effect of different sample sizes on the estimate of the mean.

A hint: variability is important!

From one population we obtain two samples, A and B. Sample sizes are

Assume for now that we know the true mean (μ) and standard deviation (σ) for the population. Note. This is one of the points of why we use computer simulation so much to teach statistics — it allows us to specify what the truth is, then see how our statistical tools work or how our assumptions affect our statistically based conclusions.

Confidence intervals

Reliability is another word for precision. We define a confidence interval as a statistic to report the reliability of our estimated statistic. We introduced confidence interval in Chapter 3.4. At least in principle, confidence intervals can be calculated for all statistics (mean, variance, etc.,) and for all data types. Confidence intervals define a lower limit, L, and an upper limit, U, and that you are making a statement that you are “95% certain that the true value (parameter value) is between these two limits.

We previously reported how to calculate an approximate confidence intervals for proportions and for NNT; simply multiple standard error estimate by 2. Here we introduce an improved approximate calculation of the 95% confidence interval for the sample mean

where Z is something you would look up from the table of the normal distribution. For a 95% confidence interval, 100% – 95% = 5% and divide 5% by two: the lower limit corresponds to 2.5% and the upper limit corresponds to 2.5% on our normal distribution. We look up the table and we find that Z for 0.025 is 1.96 and that is the value we would plug into our equation above. For large sample sizes, you can get a pretty decent estimate of the confidence interval by replacing 1.96 with “2.”

Questions

1. What is the probability of having a sample mean greater than 50 (mean > 50) for a sample of n = 9 ?

We’ll use a slight modification of the Z-score equation we introduced in Chapter 6.6 — the modification here is that previously we referred to the distribution of Xi‘s and how likely a particular observation would be. Instead, we can use the Z score with the standard normal distribution (aka Z-distribution), approach to solving how likely an estimated sample mean is given the population parameters μ and σ. Recall the Z score

We have everything we need except the SEM, which we can calculate by dividing the standard deviation by squared root of sample size.

For

, σ = 12.0 (given above), and μ = 47, n = 9, plug in the values:

Therefore, after applying the equation for Z score, . This corresponds to how far away from the standard mean of zero.

Look up from the table of normal distribution. The answer is , which corresponds to that is EQUAL to or GREATER than 0.75, which is what we wanted. Translated, this implies that, given the level of variability in the sample, 22.66% of your sample means would be greater than 50! We write: .

Some care needs to be taken when reading these tables — make sure you understand how the direction (less than, greater than) away from the mean is tabulated.

2. Instead of greater, how would you get the probability less than 50?

Total area under the curve is 1 (100%), so subtract .

I recommend that you do these by hand first, then check your answers. You’ll need to be able to do this for exams.

Here’s how to use Rcmdr to do these kind of problems.

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Normal distribution → Normal probabilities …

Figure 5. Screenshot Rcmdr menu to get normal probability.

Here’s the answer from Rcmdr

pnorm(c(50), mean=47, sd=12, lower.tail=TRUE)

[1] 0.5987063

3. Now, try a larger sample size. For , what is the probability of having a sample mean greater than 50 ()?

, μ = 47, σ = 12, n = 50 and

Therefore, after applying the equation for Z score, . Look up (Normal table, subtract answer from 1) and we get .

Or 3.84% of your sample means would be greater than 50! We write: .

Said another way: If you have a sample size of 50 () and you obtain a mean greater than 50 then there is only a 3.84% chance that the TRUE MEAN IS 47.

4. What happens if the variability is smaller? Chance σ from 12 to 6 then repeat questions 1 and 4.

5. Repeat the demonstration of Central Limit Theorem and Law of Large Numbers for discrete  distributions

1. binomial distribution. Replace rchisq() with rbinom(n, size, prob) in the replicate() function example. See Chapter 6.5
2. poisson distribution. Replace rchisq() with rpois(n, lambda) in the replicate() function example. See Chapter 6.5

Quiz Chapter 8.3

Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Chapter 8 contents

• Introduction
• The null and alternative hypotheses
• The controversy over proper hypothesis testing
• Sampling distribution and hypothesis testing
• Tails of a test
• One sample t-test
• Confidence limits for the estimate of population mean
• References and suggested readings