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

8.5 – One sample t-test

Introduction.

We’re now talking about the traditional, classical two group comparison involving continuous data types. Thus begins your introduction to parametric statistics. One sample tests involve questions like, how many — what proportion of — people would we expect are shorter or taller than two standard deviations from the mean? This type of question assumes a population and we use properties of the normal distribution and, hence, these are called parametric tests because the assumption is that the data has been sampled from a particular probability distribution.

However, when we start asking questions about a sample statistic (eg, the sample mean), we cannot use the normal distribution directly, ie, we cannot use Z and the normal table as we did before (Chapter 6.7). This is because we do not know the population standard deviation and therefore must use an estimate of the variation (s) to calculate the standard error of the mean.

With the introduction of the t-statistic, we’re now into full inferential statistics-mode. What we do have are estimates of these parameters. The t-test — aka Student’s t-test — was developed for the purpose of testing sample means when the true population parameters are not known.

The equation of the one sample t-test. Note the resemblance in form with the Z-score!

where is the sample standard error of the sample mean (SEM).

For example, weight change of mice given a hormone (leptin) or placebo. The , but under the null hypothesis, the mean change is “really” zero (). How unlikely is our value of 5 g?

Speaking of null hypotheses, can you say (or write) the null and alternative hypotheses in this example? How about in symbolic form?

We want to know if our sample mean could have been obtained by chance alone from a population where the true change in weight was zero.

$s = 3, n = 20$

and

$s_{\overline{X}} = \frac{s}{\sqrt{n}} = \frac{3}{\sqrt{20}} = 0.6708$

and we take these values and plug them into our equation of the t-test

$t = \frac{\left(5 – 0\right)}{0.67} = 7.45$

Then recall that Degrees of Freedom are DF = n – 1 so we have DF = 20 – 1 = 19 for the one sample t-test. And the Critical Value is found in the appropriate table of critical values for the t distribution (Fig 1)

Figure 1. Table of a portion of the Critical values of the t distribution. Red selections highlight critical value for t-test at α = 5% and df = 19.

Or, and better, use R

qt(c(0.025), df=19, lower.tail=FALSE)

where qt() is function call to find t-score of the p^th percentile (cf 3.3 – Measures of dispersion) of the Student t distribution. For a two tailed test, we recall that 0.025 is lower tail and 0.025 is upper tail.

In this example we would be willing to reject the Null Hypothesis if there was a positive OR a negative change in weight.

This was an example of a “two-tailed test” which is “2-tail” or α₍₂₎ in Table of critical values of the t distribution.

Critical Value for α₍₂₎ = 0.05, df = 19, = 2.093

Do we accept or reject the Null Hypothesis?

A typical inference workflow.

Note the general form of how the statistical test is processed, a form which actually applies to any statistical inference test.

1. Identify the type of data
2. State the null hypothesis (2 tailed? 1 tailed?)
3. Select the test statistic (t-test) and determine its properties
4. Calculate the test statistic (the value of the result of the t-test)
5. Find degrees of freedom
6. For the DF, get the critical value
7. Compare critical value to test statistic
8. Do we accept or reject the null hypothesis?

And then we ask, given the results of the test of inference, What is the biological interpretation? Statistical significance is not necessarily evidence of biological importance. In addition to statistical significance, the magnitude of the difference — the effect size — is important as part of interpreting results from an experiment. Statistical significance is at least in part because of sample size — the large the sample size, the smaller the standard error of the mean, therefore even small differences may be statistically significant, yet biologically unimportant. Effect size is discussed in Ch9.1 – Chi-square test: Goodness of fit, Ch11.4 – Two sample effect size and Ch12.5 – Effect size for ANOVA.

R Code.

Let’s try a one-sample t-test. Consider the following data set: body mass of four geckos and four Anoles lizards (Dohm unpublished data).

For starters, let’s say that you have reason to believe that the true mean for all small lizards is 5 grams (g).

Geckos: 3.186, 2.427, 4.031, 1.995
Anoles: 5.515, 5.659, 6.739, 3.184

Get the data into R (Rcmdr)

By now you should be able to load this data in one of several ways. If you haven’t already entered the data, check out Part 07. Working with your own data in Mike’s Workbook for Biostatistics.

Once we have our data.frame, proceed to carry out the statistical test.

To get the one-sample t-test in Rcmdr, click on Statistics → Means → Single-sample t-test… Because there is only one numerical variable, Body.mass, that is the only one that shows up in the Variable (pick one) window (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Screenshot Rcmdr single-sample t-test menu.

Type in the value 5.0 in the Null hypothesis: m = u box.

Question 1: Quick! Can you write, in plain old English, the statistical null hypothesis???

Answer 1: For example: No difference between gecko and Anolis lizard mean body mass.

Click OK

The results go to the Output Window.

t.test(lizards$Body.mass, alternative='two.sided', mu=5.0, conf.level=.95)
One Sample t-test
data: lizards$Body.mass
t = -1.5079, df = 7, p-value = 0.1753
alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 5
95 percent confidence interval:
2.668108 5.515892
sample estimates:
mean of x 4.092

end of R output

Let’s identify the parts of the R output from the one sample t-test. R reports the name of the test and identifies

1. The dataset$variable used (lizards$Body.mass). The data set was called “lizards” and the variable was “Body.mass”. R uses the dollar sign ($) to denote the dataset and variable within the data set.
2. The value of the t test statistic was (t = -1.5079). It is negative because the sample mean was less than the population mean — you should be able to verify this!
3. The degrees of freedom, df = 7
4. The p-value = 0.1753
5. 95% confidence interval of the population mean; lower limit = 2.668108, upper limit = 5.515892
6. The sample mean = 4.092

Take a step back and review.

Let’s make sure we “get” the logic of the hypothesis testing we have just completed.

Consider the one-sample t-test.

Step 1. Define H_O and H_A. The null hypothesis might be that a sample mean, , is equal to μ = 5.

$H_0 : \mu = 5$

The alternate is that the sample mean is not equal to 20.

$H_A : \mu \ne 5$

Where did the value 5 come from? It could be a value from the literature (does the new sample differ from values obtained in another lab?). The point is that the value is known in advance, before the experiment is conducted, and that makes it a one-sample t-test.

One tailed hypothesis or two?

We introduced you to the idea of “tails of a test” (Ch08.4). As you should recall, a null/alternative hypothesis for a two-tailed test may be written as

Null hypothesis

versus the alternative hypothesis

where  is the sample mean and is the population mean.

Alternatively, we can write one-tailed tests of null/alternative hypothesis

for the null hypothesis versus the alternative hypothesis

Question 2: Are all possible outcomes of the one-tailed test covered by these two hypotheses?

Answer 2: Yes

Question 3: What was the SEM for this problem?

Answer 3: It would be the sample standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size.

Step 2. Decide how certain you wish to be (with what probability) that the sample mean is different from μ. As stated previously, in biology, we say that we are willing to be incorrect 5% of the time (Cowles and Davis 1982; Cohen 1994). This means we are likely to correctly reject the null hypothesis 100% – 5% = 95% of the time, which is the definition of statistical power. We do this by setting the Type I error to be 5% (alpha, α = 0.05). The Type I error is the chance that we will reject a null hypothesis, but the true condition in the population we sampled was actually “no difference.”

Step 3. Carry out the calculation of the test statistic. In other words, get the value of t from the equation above by hand, or, if using R (yes!) simply identify the test statistic value from the R output after conducting the one sample t test.

Step 4. Evaluate the result of the test. If the value of the test statistic is greater than the critical value for the test, then you conclude that the chance (the P-value) that the result could be from that population is not likely and you therefore reject the null hypothesis.

Question 4: What is the critical value for a one-sample t-test with df = 7?

Answer 4: From R, we get + 2.365 for the two-tailed test. R code was qt(c(.025), df=7, lower.tail=FALSE)

Hint; you need the table or better, use R

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → t distributions → t quantiles

You also need to know three additional things to answer this question.

1. You need to know alpha (α), which we have said generally is set at 5%.
2. You also need to know the degrees of freedom (DF) for the test. For a one sample t-test, DF = n – 1, where n is the sample size.
3. You also must know whether your test is one or two-tailed.
4. You then use the t-distribution (the tables of the t-distribution at the back of your book) to obtain the critical value. Note that if you use R, the actual p-value is returned.

Why learn the equations when I can just do this in R?

Rcmdr does this for you as soon as you click OK. Rcmdr returns the value of the test statistic and the p-value. R does not show you the critical value, but instead returns the probability that your test statistic is as large as it is AND the null hypothesis is true. From our one-sample t-test example, the Rcmdr output. The simple answer is that in order to understand the R output properly you need to know where each item of the output for a particual test comes from and how to interpret it. Thus, the best way is to have the equations available and to understand the algorithmic approach to statistical inference.

And, this is as good of time as any to show you how to skip the RCmdr GUI and go straight to R.

First, create your variables. At the R prompt enter the first variable

liz <- c("G","G","G","G","A","A","A","A")

and then create the second variable

bm <- c(3.186,2.427,4.031,1.995,5.515,5.659,6.739,3.184)

Next, create a data frame. Think of a data frame as another word for worksheet.

lizz <- data.frame(liz,bm)

Verify that entries are correct. At the R prompt type “lizz” wthout the quotes and you should see

lizz
 liz bm
1 G 3.186
2 G 2.427
3 G 4.031
4 G 1.995
5 A 5.515
6 A 5.659
7 A 6.739
8 A 3.184

End of R output

Carry out the t-test by typing at the R prompt the following

t.test(lizz$bm, alternative='two.sided', mu=5, conf.level=.95)

And, like the Rcmdr output we have for the one-sample t-test the following R output

One Sample t-test
data: lizards$Body.mass
t = -1.5079, df = 7, p-value = 0.1753 alternative hypothesis: true mean is not equal to 5
95 percent confidence interval:
2.668108 5.515892
sample estimates:
mean of x
4.092

End of R output

which, as you probably guessed, is the same as what we got from RCmdr.

Question 5: From the R output of the one sample t-test, what was the value of the test statistic?

1. -1.5079
2. 7
3. 0.1753
4. 2.668108
5. 5.515892
6. 4.092

Answer 5: -1.5079

Why fall back on statistical tables? Think of this as a basic skill. In statistics and for some statistical tests, Rcmdr and other software may not provide the information needed to decide that your test statistic is large, and a table in a statistics book is the best way to evaluate the test.

For now, double check Rcmdr by looking up the critical value from the t-table.

Check critical value against our test statistic

Df = 8 – 1 = 7

The test is two-tailed, therefore α(2)

α = 0.05 (note that two-tailed critical value is 2.365. T was equal to 1.51 (since t-distribution is symmetrical, we can ignore the negative sign), which is smaller than 2.365 and so we would agree with Rcmdr — we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Question 6: From the R output of the one sample t-test, what was the P-value?

1. -1.5079
2. 7
3. 0.1753
4. 2.668108
5. 5.515892

Answer 6: 0.1753

Question 7: We would reject the null hypothesis

1. False
2. True

Answer 7: False — p-value, 17.5%, is greater than Type I error of 5%.

Questions

Seven questions, with answers, were provided for you within the text in this chapter. Here’s one more, but without answers.

8. Here’s a small data set for you to try your hand at the one-sample t-test and Rcmdr. The dataset contains cell counts, five counts of the numbers of beads in a liquid with an automated cell counter (Scepter, Millipore USA). The true value is 200,000 beads per milliliter fluid; the manufacturer claims that the Scepter is accurate within 15%. Does the data conform to the expectations of the manufacturer? Write a hypothesis then test your hypothesis with the one-sample t-test. Here’s the data.

Quiz Chapter 8.5

One sample t-test

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

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

6.10 – t distribution

Introduction

Student’s t distribution is a sampling distribution where values are sampled from a normal distributed population, but σ the standard deviation and μ the mean of the population are not known. When sample size is large and we know σ the standard deviation, we would use the Z-score to evaluate probabilities of the sample mean. The t-distribution applies when σ is not known and sample size is small (eg, less than 30, per rule of thirty).

Because of its thicker tails compared to the normal distribution, the t-distribution accounts for the uncertainty in estimating the population variability. This is important because we would require a more extreme value to be considered “statistically significant” compared to the normal distribution, making your conclusions more conservative.

The equation of the t-test is

where the difference between “X bar,” the sample mean, and μ, the population mean, is divided by the standard error of the mean, , defined in Chapter 3.2 and again in Chapter 3.3. This formulation of the t-test is called the one sample t-test (Chapter 8.5).  We call the result of this calculation the test statistic for t. We evaluate how often that value or greater of a test statistic will occur by applying the t distribution function.

There are many t-distributions, actually, one for every degree of freedom. Like the normal distribution, the t distribution is always symmetrical about the mean. But it is stacked up (leptokurtic) around the middle at low degrees of freedom. As degrees of freedom increase, the t distribution spreads and becomes increasingly like the normal distribution.

Relationship between t distribution and standard normal curve.

First, here is our standard normal plot, mean = 0, standard deviation = 1 (Fig 1).

Figure 1. Density plot of standard normal distribution

Next, here’s the t-distribution for five degrees of freedom (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Density plot of t-distribution for five degrees of freedom.

Lets see what happens to the shape of the t-distribution as we increase the degrees of freedom from df = 5, 10, 20, 50, 1000, 10000 (Fig 3). The last graphic in the series is the standard normal curve again (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Animated GIF of density plot t distribution, from df = 5 to 10,000 plus standard normal curve.

By convention in the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing protocol (NHST), we compare the test statistic to a critical value. The critical value is defined as the value of the test statistic that occurs at the Type I error rate, which is typically set to 5%. We introduced logic of NHST approach in Chapter 6.9 with the chi-square distribution. Again ,this is just an introduction; we teach it now as a sort of mechanical understanding to develop. The justification for this approach to testing of statistical significance is developed in Chapter 8.

Table of Critical values of the t distribution for df  1 – 5, one tail (upper)

See Appendix 20.3 for a complete table of t-distribution.

Questions

Be able to answer these questions using the t table, Appendix 20.3, or using Rcmdr

1. For probability α = 5%, what is the critical value of the t distribution (upper tail) for 1 degree of freedom? For 5 df? For 20 df? For 30 df?
2. The value of the t test statistic is given as 12. With 3 degrees of freedom, what is the approximate probability of this value, or greater from the t distribution?

Quiz Chapter 6.10

t distribution

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Chapter 6 contents

• Introduction
• Some preliminaries
• Ratios and proportions
• Combinations and permutations
• Types of probability
• Discrete probability distributions
• Continuous distributions
• Normal distribution and the normal deviate (Z)
• Moments
• Chi-square distribution
• t distribution
• F distribution
• References and suggested readings

4.1 – Bar (column) charts

Introduction

Bar chart, also called a bar graph, or column chart in many spreadsheet apps (e.g., Google Sheets, Microsoft Excel, Libreoffice Calc — “bar charts” is reserved for horizontal bar plots),  are used to compare counts among two or more categories, i.e., an alternative to pie charts (Fig. 1). 

Figure 1. Single nucleotide variants for human gene ACTB by DNA and functional element (data collected 19 May 2022 from NCBI SNP database with Advanced search query). A. Pie chart. Note that slide for “exon – nonsense” is not visible. B. Bar chart – color coded bars to facilitate comparison with pie chart.

Although bar charts are common in the literature (Cumming et al 2007; Streit and Gehlenborg 2014), bar charts may not be a good choice for comparisons of ratio scale data (Streit and Gehlenbor 2014). Bar charts for ratio data are misleading. Parts of the range implied by the bar may never have been observed: the bars of the chart always start at zero. Box (whisker) plots are better for comparisons of ratio scale data and are presented in the next section of this chapter. That said, I will go ahead and present how to create bar charts for both count — generally considered acceptable — and ratio scale data, for which their use is controversial.

Purpose of the bar chart

Like all graphics, a bar chart should tell a story. The purpose of displaying data is to give your readers a quick impression of the general differences among two or more groups of the data. For counts, that’s where the bar chart comes in. The bar chart is preferred over the pie chart because differences are represented by lengths of the bars in the bar chart. Differences among categories in a pie chart are reflected by angles, and it seems that humans are much better at judging lengths than angles.

Bar chart with counts

Figure 2. A simple bar chart

myCombo <- seq(0,10, by=1) 
myCounts <- choose(10, myCombo)    #combinations
barplot(myCounts, names.arg = myCombo, xlab = "Number correct", ylab = "Count",col = "darkblue")

 A stacked bar chart is used to 

myCombo <- seq(0,10, by=1) 
myCounts <- choose(10, myCombo)    #combinations
barplot(myCounts, names.arg = myCombo, xlab = "Number correct", ylab = "Count",col = "darkblue")

Figure 3. The luxury ship RMS Titanic, which sunk 15 April 1912, More than 1500 souls were lost. Public domain image, Wikipedia. Click image to view full sized image.

Stacked bar chart, data set TitanicSurvival in package carData.

Figure 4. A stacked bar chart, survival Titanic

Barplot(passengerClass, by=survived, style="divided", legend.pos="above", xlab="passengerClass", ylab="Frequency")

Bar charts with error bars

Although many data visualization specialists argue against the bar chart — they tend to obscure data — their use is well established. For the familiar bar chart with ratio scale data, the X (horizontal) axis displays the categories of one variable (e.g., location, or treatment group). You plot groups to emphasize comparisons. The Y (vertical) axis then is the mean for each group.

You need error bars with your bar chart to convey variability. A bar chart plus error bars is sometimes called (pejoratively) a dynamite plot. If the mean is displayed, some measure of precision should be (must be?) displayed (Cumming et al 2007). And, as you should recall by now, your choices are standard deviation (Chapter 3.2), standard error of the mean (SEM) (Chapters 3.2, 3.4), or confidence interval (see Chapter 3.4). It is strongly advised, that without a representation of precision, one should not interpret trends or group differences from representations of means (i.e., height of bars) alone.

The bar charts on this page are means plus or minus the standard error of the mean, + SEM. I’m not advocating here for the bar chart — box plots with efforts to show the actual data are better. However, bar charts remain common and may be more familiar to certain audiences. We’ll discuss which choice to make.

Examples

The Copper_rats_PMID3357063 dataset will be used for the next series of graphs (Data set). Refer to Mike’s Workbook for Biostatistics Part07 to review how to import the data.

A portion of the data set is shown below

head(Copper)
         Diet     Body    Heart    Liver
1 Adequate-Cu 320.1381 1.125037 10.259657
2 Adequate-Cu 329.6879 1.158982 9.843295
3 Adequate-Cu 327.9838 1.090374 9.855975
4 Adequate-Cu 334.6669 1.118183 9.942997
5 Adequate-Cu 338.3134 1.172636 9.860971
6 Adequate-Cu 345.4608 1.056183 8.885820

The data set consists of organ weights (heart, liver) from rats fed a diet adequate in copper, deficient in copper, and then a third group who received the adequate diet from perspective of amount of copper, but calorie restricted to match the decreased feeding rates of the rats fed the copper deficient diet. Copper is an essential trace element in our diet. The data set was simulated from descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, number of subjects) of published data by sampling from a normal distribution. (Table 1, Ovecka et al 1988).

On we go with some graphs.

But, I’m still learning about R graphics, and for bar charts with error bars, I find other packages more straight-forward. So, I’ll use this moment to point out that making a good graph is more about the end product then the particular tools. I have been using other tools for years to make my graphics, so I tend to default on these options first. Graphs presented here are mostly from Veusz software program (pronounced “views”). I like it because the software allows me to edit any of the elements of the graph.

Here’s a typical looking bar chart with ratio scale data: means ± SEM. Let’s look at them more critically.

Figure 5. A bar chart with error bars (standard error of the mean).

Figure 6. Another bar chart. with standard errors of mean

When making comparisons, make sure the axes have the same scale, or consider putting the graphs together.

Figure 7. Bar chart that allows for a comparison among levels of a a factor (organs, liver vs. heart).

Here’s the organ weights again, but taken as ratio of body mass.

Figure 8. Same chart as in Figure 6, but on ratios.

How to make a bar chart with error bars in R

Option 1. First, let’s try a work-around. Instead of an error bar option for bar chart menu, Rcmdr provides a plot of means that allows you to plot with error bars. These are equivalent graphs, the “bar chart” and the “plot of means”, though you should favor the bar chart format for publishing.

Rcmdr: Graphs → Plot of means…

Figure 9. Rcmdr menu popup for Plots Means

Here, Rcmdr takes the data and calculates the mean and your choice of standard errors or deviations, confidence intervals, or no error bars. the resulting graph is below.

Figure 10. Plot of means

That’s an ugly graph (Fig. 10). Functional, good enough for data exploration and preliminary results, and certainly good enough for a Biostatistics homework or report. Additionally, connecting the dots here is a no-no. It implies that if we had measured categories between “adequate copper” and “deficient copper,” then the points would fall on those lines. That would be a complete guess. So, why did I include the connecting lines? That was the default setting for the command, and it makes the point — think before you click. One argument for connecting points in a graph is that it makes it easier for the reader to visualize trends.

This graph (Fig. 10) is fine for exploring data, but you will want to do better for publication.

Let’s make some better graphs with R

Once you are ready to go beyond the default settings available in Rcmdr, there is tremendous functionality in R for graphics. To access R’s potential, you’ll need to get into the commands a bit. I’m going to continue to try and shield you from the programming aspects of R, but from time to time you really need to see what is possible with R. Graphics is one such area. I use the package gplots, with 23 different graphing functions (type at R prompt ?gplots to call up the manual pages).

gplots should be among the packages on your R installation; if not, then install the package and run library(gplots) to complete the installation. We’ll try the barchart2 function.

But first, we need to get means for each of our groups.

At the R command prompt:

hrtWt <- tapply(Dataset$HeartWt, list(Group=Dataset$Group), mean, na.rm=TRUE) 

This code extracts means from our HeartWt variable for each Group, then  stores the three (in this case, because our data set has 3 groups) in the place holder I had called hrtWt. To verify that the three means are there, type “hrtWt” without the quotes then enter.

You should see

hrtWt Group Cu adequate Cu deficient Pair-fed 
               1.200000     1.566667 0.900000

R functions used: tapply, list, mean; na.rm was not needed but would be used to remove all missing values (recall during our import phase we were asked how missing observations were noted in our file; the default is NA).

Next, I want to apply standard error bars

stdDEV <- tapply(Dataset$HeartWt, list(Group=Dataset$Group), sd, na.rm=TRUE)
cil <- hrtWt-(stdDEV/sqrt(3))
ciu <- hrtWt+(stdDEV/sqrt(3))

I used cil and ciu to designate the lower cil and upper ciu values for my ± SEM (standard error of the mean). ciu stands for “confidence interval lower;” ciu stands for “confidence interval upper.”

Finally, here’s the plot command

barplot2(hrtWt, beside = TRUE, main=c("Mice fed different amounts of copper in diet"), col = c("blue", "red", "green"), xlab="Copper in diet", ylab="Heart mass (g)", ylim = c(0, 2), plot.ci=TRUE, ci.l=cil, ci.u=ciu)

Now, draw a box around the graphic

box()

Whew!

What does your new graph look like? My graph is below (Fig. 11).

Figure 11. A bar chart using barplot2.

This works and the point is that once the script is written it easy to make small changes as you need in the future to make nice graphs.

If you are impatient like me, I like a GUI option, at least to start crafting the graph. The Rcmdr plugin KMggplot2 provides a good set of tools to make bar charts with error bars. An even better option I think is to use a software package that is designed for graphics, at least simple graphics like a bar chart. I use SciDAVis and Veusz for simple graphs like pie charts and bar charts; much easier to control.

ggplot2 bar charts with error bars

Nevertheless, here’s how to make a bar chart with error bars using ggplot2 (Fig. 11). First, we need to create a statistics summary. The script printed here was modified from scripts at R Graph Cookbook website.

require(plyr)
summarySE <- function(data=NULL, measurevar, groupvars=NULL, na.rm=FALSE,
     conf.interval=.95, .drop=TRUE) {
length2 <- function (x, na.rm=FALSE) {
     if (na.rm) sum(!is.na(x))
     else length(x)
}

#returns a vector with N, mean, and sd
datac <- ddply(data,groupvars, .drop=.drop,
    .fun = function(xx,col){
      c(N=length2(xx[[col]],na.rm=na.rm),
      mean=mean(xx[[col]],na.rm=na.rm),
      sd=sd(xx[[col]],na.rm=na.rm)
     )
    },
    measurevar
   )

#Rename the "mean" column
datac <- rename(datac,c("mean"=measurevar))

#Calculate the standard error of the mean
datac$se <- datac$sd/sqrt(datac$N)

#Get confidence interval
ciMult <- qt(conf.interval/2 + .5, datac$N-1)
datac$ci <- datac$se*ciMult

return(datac)
}

Applying this function to the BMI dataset yields the following output.

sumBMI <- summarySE(BMI, measurevar="BMI", groupvars=c("Sex", "Smoke"));sumBMI

   Sex Smoke   N      BMI       sd        se       ci 
1    F    No  23 26.83567 7.610271 1.5868511 3.290928 
2    F   Yes  14 25.76133 4.658625 1.2450698 2.689810 
3    M    No  10 26.35731 3.363575 1.0636557 2.406156 
4    M   Yes  27 26.71879 4.675631 0.8998256 1.849618

Now we are ready to make the bar chart with error bars

ggplot(tgc,aes(x=Smoke,y=BMI,fill=Sex)) + 
 geom_bar(position=position_dodge(),stat="identity",color="black") + 
 geom_errorbar(aes(ymin=BMI,ymax=BMI+se),width=.2,position=position_dodge(.9))

Figure 12. A barchart from ggplot2

Questions

1. Why should you use box plots and not bar charts to display comparisons for a ratio scale variable between categories? Obtain a copy of the article by Streit and Gehlenbor 2014 — it’s free! After reading, summarize the pro and cons for box plots over bar charts with error bars.

2. Enter the following data into R. The data are sulfate levels in water, parts per million. 

type = c("Palolo Stream","Chaminade tap water", "Aquafina","Dasani") 
sulfateppm =c(11, 14, 5, 12)
try = data.frame(type,sulfateppm) 
byWater = tapply(try$sulfateppm,list(Group=try$type),mean)

Make a simple bar chart using the boxplot2 function in gplots package. 

3. Change the range of values on the vertical axis to 0, 20

4. Change the color of the bars from gray to blue

5. Add a label to the vertical axis, “Sulfates, ppm” (without the quotes)

6. Add a box around the graph.

Quiz – Chapter 4.1

Bar charts

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Data set

Chapter 4 contents

• Graphs and tables
• Bar (column) charts
• Histograms
• Box plot
• Mosaic plots
• Scatter plots
• Adding a second Y axis
• Q-Q plot
• Ternary plots
• Heat maps
• Graph software
• References and suggested readings

3.3 – Measures of dispersion

More about summary statistics.

The statistics of data exploration involve calculating estimates of the middle, central tendency, and the variability, or dispersion, about the middle. Statistics about the middle were presented in the previous section, Chapter 3.1. Statistics about measures of dispersion, and how to calculate them in R, are presented in this page. Use of Z score to standardize or normalize scores is introduced. Statistical bias is also introduced. 

Describing the middle of the data gives your reader a sense of what was the typical observation for that variable. Next, your reader will want to know something about the variation about the middle value — what was the smallest value observed? What was the largest value observed? Were data widely scattered or clumped about the middle?

Measures of dispersion or variability are descriptive statistics used to answer these kinds of questions. Variability statistics are very important and we will use them throughout the course. A key descriptive statement of your data, how variable?

Examine the two figures below (Fig 1 and Fig 2): the two sample frequency distributions (put data into several groups, from low to high, and membership is counted for each group) have similar central tendencies (mean), but they have different degrees of variability (standard deviation).

Figure 1. A histogram which displays a sampling of data with a mean of 10 (arrow marks the spot) and standard deviation (sd) of 50 units.

Figure 2. A histogram which displays a sampling of data with the same mean of 10 (arrow marks the spot) displayed in Fig. 1, but with a smaller standard deviation (sd) of 5 units.

Clearly, knowing something about the middle of a data set is only part of the required information we need when we explore a data set; we need measures of dispersion as well. Provided certain assumptions about the frequency of observations hold, estimates of the middle (eg, mean, median) and the dispersion (eg, standard deviation) are adequate to describe the properties of any observed data set.

For measures of dispersion or variability, the most common statistics are: Range, Mean Deviation, Variance, Standard Deviation, and Coefficient of Variation.

The range.

The range is reported as one number, the difference between maximum and minimum values.

Arrange the data from low to high, subtract the minimum, X_min, from the maximum, X_max, value and that’s the range.

For example, the minimum height of a collection of fern trees might be 1 meter whereas the maximum height might be 2.2 meters. Therefore, the range is 1.2 meters (= 2.2 – 1).

The range is useful, but may be misleading (as index of true variability in population) if there is one or more exceptional “outlier” (one individual that has an exceptionally large or small value). I often just report X_min and X_max. That’s the way R does it, too.

If you recall, we used the following as an example data set.

x = c(4,4,4,4,5,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,8,15)

The command for range in R is simply range().

range(x)
[1] 4 15

There is apparently no universally accepted symbol for “range,” so we report the statistic as range = 15 – 4 = 11.

You may run into an interquartile range, which is abbreviated as IQR. It is a trimmed range, which means, like the trimmed mean, it will be robust to outlier observations. To calculate this statistic, divide the data into fourths, termed quartiles. For our example variable, x, we can get the quartiles in R

quantile(x)
  0%  25%  50%  75% 100% 
 4.0  4.5  6.0  7.5 15.0 

Thus, we see that 25% of the observations are 4.5 (or less), the second quartile is the median, and 75% of the observations are less than 7.5. The IQR is the difference between the first quartile, Q1, and the third quartile, Q3.

The command for obtaining the IQR in R is simply IQR(). Yes. You have to capitalize “IQR” — R is case sensitive; that means IqR is not the same as IQR or iqr.

IQR(x)
[1] 3.5

and we report the statistic as IQR = 3.5. Thus, 75% of the observations are within 3.5 points of the median. The IQR is used in box plots (Chapter 4). Quartiles are special cases of the more general quantile; quantiles divide up the range of values into groups with equal probabilities. For quartiles, four groups at 25% intervals. Other common quantiles include deciles (ten equal groups, 10% intervals) and percentiles (100 groups, 1% intervals).

The mean deviation.

Subtract each observation from the sample mean; each  is called a deviate: some observations will be positive (greater than ) and some will be negative (less than ).

Take the absolute value of the deviation and then add up the absolute values of the deviations from the mean. At the end, divide by the sample size, n. Large values for this statistic implies that much of the data is spread out, far from the mean. Small values in turn imply that each observation is close to the mean.

In R, we can get the mean deviation with the mad() function. At the R prompt, then

mad(x)
[1] 2.9652

Population variance and population standard deviation.

The population variance is appropriate for describing variability about the middle for a census. Again, a census implies every member of the population was measured. Equation of the population variance is

The population standard deviation also describes the variability about the middle, but has the advantage of being in the same units as the quantity (ie, no “squared” term). Equation of the population standard deviation is

Sample variance and sample standard deviation.

The above statements about the population variance and standard deviation hold for the sample statistics. Equation of the sample variance

and the equation of the sample standard deviation

Of course, instead of taking the square-root of the sample variance, the sample standard deviation could be calculated directly.

*** QuickLaTeX cannot compile formula:
\begin{align*}s = \sqrt{\frac{\sum \left ( X_{i} - \bar{X} \right )^2}{n-1}\end{align*}

*** Error message:
File ended while scanning use of \align*.
Emergency stop.

Statistical bias is an important concept in its own right; bias is a problem because it refers to a situation in which an estimator consistently returns a value different from the population parameter for which it is intended to estimate. Thus, the sample mean is said to be an unbiased estimator of the population mean. Here, bias means that the formula will give you a good estimate of the value. This turns out not to be the case for the sample variance if you divide by n instead of n - 1. Now, for very large values of n, this is not much of an issue, but it shows up when n is small. In R you get what you ask for — if you ask for the sample standard deviation, the software will return the correct value; calculators, go to watch out for this — not all of them are good at communicating which standard deviation they are calculating, the population or the sample standard deviation.

Winsorized variances.

Like the trimmed mean and winsorized mean (Ch3.2), we may need to construct a robust estimate of variability less sensitive to extreme outliers.  Winsorized refers to procedures to replace extreme values in the sample with a smaller value. As noted in Chapter 3.2, we chose the level ahead of time, eg, 90%. Winsorized values then  The winsorized variance is just the sample variance of the winsorized values.  winvar() from the WRS2 package.

Making use of the sample standard deviation.

Given an estimate of the mean and an estimate of the standard deviation, one can quickly determine the kinds of observations made and how frequently they are expected to be found in a sample from a population (assuming a particular population distribution). For example, it is common in journal articles for authors to provide a table of summary statistics like the mean and standard deviation to describe characteristics of the study population (aka the reference population), or samples of subjects drawn from the study population (aka the sample population). The CDC provides reports of attributes of for a sample of adults (more than forty thousand) from the USA population (Fryar et al 2018). Table 1 shows a sample of results for height, weight, and waist circumference for men aged 20 – 39 years.  

Table 1. Summary statistics mean ( standard deviation) of height, weight, and waist circumference of 20-39 year old men USA.

We introduced the normal deviate as a way to normalize scores, and which we we will use extensively in our discussion of the normal distribution in Chapter 6.7, as a way to standardize a sample distribution, assuming a normal curve.

For data that are normally distributed, the standard deviation can be used to tell us a lot about the variability of the data:

​ 62.26% of the data will lie between of

​ 95.46% of the data will lie between of  

​ 99.0% of the data will lie between of

This is known as the empirical rule, where 68% of the observations will be within one standard deviation, 95% of observations will be within two standard deviations, and 99% of observations will be within three standard deviations. 

For example, men aged 20 years in the USA are on average μ = 5 feet 11 inches tall, with a standard deviation of σ = 3 inches. Consider a sample of 1000 men from this population. Assuming a normal distribution, we predict that 623 (62.26%) will be between 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 ft. 2 in. ().

Where did the 5 ft. 8 in. and the 6 ft. 2 in. come from /? We add or subtract multiples of standard deviations. Thus, 6 ft. 2 in. = 5 ft. 11 in. (replace σ = 3) and 5 ft. 8 in. = 5 ft. 11 in. (again, replace σ = 3″).

Can generalize to any distribution. Chebyshev’s inequality (or theorem) guarantees that no more than a particular fraction of observations can be a specified standard deviations distance away from the mean ( needs to be greater than 1). Thus, for standard deviations, we expect a minimum of 75% of values within () two standard deviations away from the mean, or for , then 89% of values will be within () three standard deviations from the mean.

Hopefully you are now getting a sense how this knowledge allows you to plan an experiment.

For example, for a sample of 1000 observations of height of men, how many do we expect to be greater than 6 ft. 7 in. tall? Apply the empirical rule and do a little math — 79 inches (6 ft. 7 in) minus 71 inches (the mean) is equal to 8. Divide 8 by 3 (our value of ) you’ll get 2.66667; so, 6 ft. 7 in. tall is about 2.67 X standard deviations greater than the mean. From Chebyshev’s inequality we have , or 14% of observations less than or greater than the mean ().

Our question asks only about expected number of observations greater than ; divide 14% in half — we therefore expect about 70 individuals out of 1000 men sampled to be 6 ft. 7 in. or taller. Note we made no assumption about the shape of the distribution. If we assume the sample of observations comes from the normal distribution, then we can apply the Z score: about 4 individuals out of 1000 expected to be from the mean (see R code in Note box). We extend the Z-score work in Chapter 6.7.

round(1000*(pnorm(c(79), mean=71, sd=3,lower.tail=FALSE)),0)

round(1000*(pnorm(c(2.67), mean=0, sd=1,lower.tail=FALSE)),0)

[1] 4

Another example, this time with a data set available in R, the diabetic retinopathy data set in the survival package.

data(diabetic, package="survival")

Ages of the 394 subjects ranged from 1 to 58. Mean was 20.8 + 14.81 years. How many out of 100 subjects do we expect greater than 50 years old? With Chebyshev’s inequality we have , or 25.7% of observations less than or greater than the mean, so about 13. If we assume normality, then Z score (Upper tail) is 28.5% and we expect 28 subjects older than 50. Checking the data set, only eight subjects were older than 50. Our estimate by Chebyshev’s inequality was closer to the truth. Why /? Take a look at the histogram (Ch4) of the ages (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Histogram of ages of subjects in the diabetic retinopathy data set in the survival package.

Doesn’t look like a normal distribution, does it/?. 

Z-score or Chebyshev’s inequality, which to use /? Chebyshev’s inequality is more general — it can be used whether the variables is discrete or continuous and without assumption about the distribution. In contrast, the Z score assumes more is known about the variable: random, continuous, drawn from a normally distributed population. Thus, as long as these assumptions hold, the Z score approach will give a better answer. Makes intuitive sense — if we know more, our predictions should be better.

In summary from the above points, and perhaps more formally for our purposes, the standard deviation is a good statistic to describe variability of observations on subjects, it’s integral to the concept of precision of an estimate and is part of any equation for calculating confidence intervals (CI). For any estimated statistic, a good rule of thumb is to always include a confidence interval calculation. We introduced these intervals in our discussion of risk analysis (approximate CI of NNT), and we will return to confidence intervals more formally when we introduce t-tests.

When you hear people talk about “margin of error” in a survey, typically they are referring to the standard deviation — to be more precise, they are referring to a calculation that includes the standard deviation, the standard error and an accounting for confidence in the estimate (see also Chapter 3.5 – Statistics of error). 

Corrected Sums of Squares.

Now, take a closer look at the sample variance formula. We see a deviate

The variance is the average of the squared deviations from the mean. Because of the “squared” part, this statistic will always be positive and greater (or typically, equal to) zero. The variance has squared units (eg, if the units were grams, then the variance units are grams²). The sample standard deviation has the same units as the quantity (ie, no “squared” term). The numerator is called a sums of squares, and will be abbreviated as SS. Much like the deviate, will show up frequently as we move forward in statistics (eg, it’s key to understanding ANOVA).

Other standard deviations of means.

Just as we discussed for the arithmetic average, there will be corresponding standard deviations for the other kinds of means. With the geometric mean, one would calculate the standard deviation of the geometric mean, s_gm, as

where exp is the exponential function, ln refers to natural logarithm, and refers to the sample geometric mean.

For the sample harmonic mean, it turns out there isn’t a straight-forward formula, only an approximation (which I will spare you — it involves use of expectations and moments).

Base R, and therefore Rcmdr, doesn’t have built in functions for these, although you could download and install some R packages which do (eg, package NCStats, and the function is geosd() ).

If we run into data types appropriate for the geometric or harmonic means and standard deviations I will point these out; for now, I present these for completeness only.

Coefficient of variation (CV).

An unfortunate property of the standard deviation is that it is related (= “correlated”) to the mean — a fact recognized by Pearson (1896, p 276). Thus, if the mean of a sample of 100 individuals is 5 and variability is about 20%, then the standard deviation is about 1; compare to a sample of 100 individuals with mean = 25 and 20% variability, the standard deviation is about 5. For means ranging from 1 to 100, here’s a plot to show you what I am talking about.

Figure 4. Scatter plot of the standard deviation (StDev) by the mean. Data sets were simulated.

The data presented in the Figure 4 graph were simulated. Is this bias, a correlation between mean and standard deviation, something you’d see in “real” data? Here’s a plot of height in inches at withers for dog breeds (Fig 5). A line is drawn (ordinary linear regression, see Chapter 17) and as you can see, as the mean increases, the variability as indicated by the standard deviation also increases.

Figure 5. Plot of the standard deviation by the mean for heights of different breeds of dogs.

So, to compare variability estimates among groups when the means also vary, we need a new statistic, the coefficient of variation, abbreviated CV (Pearson 1896). The coefficient of variation is also known as the relative standard deviation, RSD. Many statistics textbooks not aimed at biologists do not provide this estimator (eg, check your statistics book).

This is simply the standard deviation of the sample divided by the sample mean, then multiplied by 100 to give a percent. The CV is useful when comparing the distributions of different types of data with different means.

Many times, the standard deviation of a distribution will be associated with the mean of the data.

Example. The standard deviation in height of elephants will be larger on the centimeter scale than the standard deviation of the height of mice. However, the amount of variability RELATIVE to the mean may be similar between elephants and mice. The CV might indicate that the relative variability of the two organisms is the same.

The standard deviation will also be influenced by the scale of measurement. If you measure on the mm scale versus the meter scale the magnitude of the SD will change. However, the CV will be the same!

By dividing the standard deviation by the mean you remove the measurement scale dependence of the standard deviation and generally, you also remove the relationship of the standard deviation with the mean. Therefore, CV is useful when comparing the variability of the data from distributions with different means.

One disadvantage is that the CV is only useful for ratio scale data (ie, those with a true zero).

The coefficient of variation is also one of the statistics useful for describing the precision of a measurement. See Chapter 3.4 Estimating parameters.

Standard error of the mean (SEM).

All estimates should be accompanied by a statistic that describes the accuracy of the measure. Combined with the confidence interval (Chapter 3.4), one such statistic is called the standard error of the mean, or SEM for short. For the error associated with calculation of our sample mean, it is defined as the sample standard deviation divided by the square root of n, the sample size.

sem →

The concept of error for estimates is a crucial concept. All estimates are made with error and for many statistics, a calculation is available to estimate the error (see Chapter 3.4).

Although related to each other, the concepts of sample standard deviation and sample standard error have distinct interpretations in statistics. The standard deviation quantifies the amount of variation of observations from the mean, while the standard error quantifies the difference between the sample mean and the population mean. The standard error will always be smaller than the standard deviation and is best left for reporting accuracy of a measure and statistical inference rather than description.

Questions.

1. For a sample data set like myY <- c(1,1,3,6), you should now be able to calculate, by hand, the
   • range
   • mean
   • median
   • mode
   • standard deviation
   • coefficient of variation
2. For our example data set, myX <- c(4,4,4,4,5,6,6,6,7,7,8,8,8,8,8) calculate
   • IQR
   • sample standard deviation, s
   • coefficient of variation
3. Use the sample() command in R to draw samples of size 4, 8, and 12 from your example data set stored in myX. Repeat the calculations from question 4. For example x4 <- sample(x,4) will randomly select four observations from x, and will store it in the object x4, like so (your numbers probably will differ!) x4 <- sample(x,4); x4 [1] 8 6 8 6
4. Repeat the exercise in question 4 again using different samples of 4, 8, and 12. For example, when I repeat sample(x,4) a second time I get sample(x,4) [1] 8 4 8 6
5. For Table 1, determine how many multiples of the standard deviation for observations greater than 95-percentile (eg, determine the observation value for a person who is in the 95-percentile for Height in the different decades, etc.
6. Calculate the sample range, IQR, sample standard deviation, and coefficient of variation for the following data sets
   • Height in inches of mothers,
   mom <- c(67, 66.5, 64, 58.5, 68, 66.5) #(data from GaltonFamilies in R package HistData)
   and fathers,
   dad <- c(78.5, 75.5, 75, 75, 74, 74) #(data from GaltonFamilies in R package HistData)
   • Carbon dioxide (CO₂) readings from Mauna Loa for the month of December for
   years <-c (1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020)
   years <-c (1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020) #obviously, do not calculate statistics on years; you can use to make a plot
co2 <- c(316.19, 319.42, 325.13, 330.62, 338.29, 346.12, 354.41, 360.82, 396.83, 380.31, 389.99, 402.06, 414.26) #(data from Dr. Pieter Tans, NOAA/GML (gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/) and Dr. Ralph Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/))
   • Body mass of Rhinella marina (formerly Bufo marinus) (see Fig. 1),
   bufo <- c(71.3, 71.4, 74.1, 85.4, 85.4, 86.6, 97.4, 99.6, 107, 115.7, 135.7, 156.2) 

Quiz – Chapter 3.3

Measures of dispersion

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

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