6.8 – Moments

Introduction

We care about the shape of data distribution because it can impact statistical inference. If the shape of the observed distribution differs from the standard, eg, normal, then one option is to transform the data (see Chapter 13 – Assumptions of parametric tests).

Moments are used to describe the shape of a distribution. For those of you who remember your calculus, moments were discussed as a method to find the center of mass, or balancing point (Herman and Strang 2018). For distributions, the center and shape moments follow from the expected value of the probability function.

Note 1: Expected value of a statistic is calculated by multiplying the likelihood of each possible outcome in a sample space, then adding up all of those values. From probability theory it is the weighted average of the outcomes of a random variable. A simpler way to think of the expected value is that if one were to guess the height of a person, the expected value is the average height of the population from which the person would be selected.

Four moments apply for describing the shape of a distribution. The 1st moment describes the middle, the 2nd describes the spread from the middle, the 3rd describes symmetry about the middle, and the 4th describes the shape, whether peaked and sharp (leptokurtic), or broad and flattened (platykurtic).

Equations for the moments

Over the years, several equations  have been proposed to estimate skewness and kurtosis. The above formulas are just one example from the list (Joanes and Gill 1998).

Pearson’s standardized moments:

    \begin{align*} \frac{\mu_{n}}{\sigma ^{n}}\equiv \frac{E\left [ X-\mu \right ]^{n}}{\sigma ^{n}} \end{align*}

where E is expected value of random variable. The expected value concept follows from rules of probability — basically, the average of large number, n, of X.

Four moments can be used to describe the shape of a distribution.

1st moment, μ (mean): population mean, 3.1 – Measures of Central Tendency

2nd moment, σ2 (variance): population variance, 3.2 – Measures of dispersion

3rd moment, skewness symbol (skew):

    \begin{align*} \frac{\mu_{3}}{\sigma ^{3}}=\frac{\sqrt{n\left ( n-1 \right )}}{n-2}\left [ \frac{\frac{1}{n}\sum \left ( X-\mu \right )^3}{\left ( \frac{1}{n}\sum \left ( X-\mu \right )^2 \right )^3} \right ] \end{align*}

4th moment, symbol kurtosis (kurtosis):

    \begin{align*} \frac{\mu_{4}}{\sigma ^{4}}=3\sigma ^4=\frac{\mu_{4}}{\mu_{2}^2} \end{align*}

Estimating moments in R and R Commander

Consider results for more than a thousand runners who completed a 5K timed run (Fig 1).

histogram, finishing times in minutes

Figure 1. Histogram finishing times in minutes for 1307 runners at 2016 Banana 5K.

The task is to describe the moments for the 5K data set.

Recall: The first moment is the mean. The second moment is the variance. The third moment is skewness. And the fourth moment is kurtosis.

In R Commander, we select Statistics → Summaries → Numerical summaries…, which brings up a popup menu. First, select the variable, in this case Minutes, from the Data tab (not shown). Next, click on Statistics tab to choose options (Fig 2).

Rcmdr Numerical summaries

Figure 2. Rcmdr Numerical summaries Statistics tab.

For estimates of the moments, check Mean, Standard Deviation, Skewness, and Kurtosis.

Note 2: R Commander gives you the choice among three different Types of skewness and kurtosis. The default is type 2 and that’s the one you should go with. Type 1, the classical method which include the equations provided on this page, corresponding to definitions dating back to the 1940s. Type 2 is the default in R and corresponds to equations used by other professional statistics package (SAS, SPSS). Type 3 is used by other statistical packages (eg, Minitab). For large sample size, the different types will tend to agree. Caution applies to smaller data sets — the different types may disagree (Joanes and Gill 1998), although only for the third and fourth moments.

Large sample size, n = 1307

Type 1

    mean       sd  skewness    kurtosis    n
34.42999 10.31437 0.6159258 -0.01593882 1307

Type 2

    mean       sd  skewness    kurtosis    n
34.42999 10.31437 0.6166337 -0.01139521 1307

Type 3

    mean       sd skewness    kurtosis    n
34.42999 10.31437 0.615219 -0.02050335 1307

Small sample size

To test the claim about sample size and the moment statistics, draw a random sample of 30 from the larger data set. Sample without replacement

sample.banana <- data.frame(sample(banana5K$Minutes, 30, replace = FALSE))

I forgot to specify a new variable name, so R used the whole command as the variable name. I could go back and fix my function call, or simply rename the variable as follows

names(sample.banana)[c(1)] <- c("Minutes")

The random sample yielded a distribution (Fig 3).

Histogram sample size 30

Figure 3. Histogram finishing times in minutes for random sample of 30 drawn from 1307 runners at 2016 Banana 5K.

Repeat Numerical summaries on small data set, n = 30

Type 1

    mean       sd  skewness  kurtosis  n
33.16667 10.00373 0.5538637 0.5024438 30

Type 2

    mean       sd  skewness  kurtosis  n
33.16667 10.00373 0.5834511 0.8276415 30

Type 3

    mean       sd  skewness  kurtosis  n
33.16667 10.00373 0.5264025 0.2728392 30

Conclusion: We can compare consistency of the estimators by calculating coefficient of variation. The three types of skewness estimators differed by only 1% and 5% for large and small sample size, respectively. In contrast, the three types of kurtosis estimators differed by 29% and 52% for large and small sample size, respectively.

Questions

  1. Explore the consistency of skewness and kurtosis estimates by calculating and comparing coefficient of variation estimates. R Commander provide a nice way to draw randomly from various defined distributions. Draw two data sets of 15 (small) and 1000 (large), from the chi-square distribution (1 degree of freedom) and a minimum of one other continuous distribution.

Example, draw random sample of 1000 from chi-square distribution. Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Chi-squared distribution → Sample from chi-squared distribution... (Fig 4).

Enter name for the variable, enter degrees of freedom (eg, 1), number of samples (eg, 1000), and number of observations (variables, columns). Leave Sample means checked under data sets.

Rcmdr command to select sample from a distribution
Figure 4. Screenshot Rcmdr menu: Sample from Chisquare distribution.

This results in a new data set. Get “moments” from Numerical summaries and calculate coefficient of variations. Which moments have the most consistency regardless of the kind of distribution.

  1. Make histograms for each of your created data sets. Describe what you see about the shape of the plotted distributions.

Quiz Chapter 6.8

Moments

Chapter 6 contents

13.4 – Tests for Equal Variances

Introduction

In order to carry out statistical tests correctly, we must test our data first to see if our sample conforms to the assumptions of the statistical test. If our data do not meet these assumptions, then inferences drawn may be incorrect. How far off our inferences may be depends on a number of factors, but mostly it depends on how far from the expectations our data are.

One assumption we make with parametric tests involving ratio scale data is that the data could be from a normally distributed population. The other key assumption introduced, but not described in detail for the two-sample t-test, was that the variability in the two groups must be the same, ie, homoscedasticity. Thus, in order to carry out the independent sample t-test, we must assume that the variances are equal.

There are two general reasons we may want to concern ourselves with a test for the differences between two variances

  1. The t-test (and other tests like one-way ANOVA) requires that the two samples compared have the same variances. If the Variances are Not Equal we need to perform a modified t-test (see Welch’s formula).
  2. We may also be interested in the differences between the variances in two populations.

Example 1: In genetics we might be interested in the difference between the variability of response of inbred lines (little genetic variation but environmental variation) versus an outbred populations (lots of genetic and environmental variation).

Example 2: Environmental stress can cause organisms to have developmental instability. This might cause organisms to be more variable in morphology or the two sides (right & left) of an organism may develop non-symmetrically. Therefore, polluted environments might cause organisms to have greater variability compared to non-polluted environments.

The first way to test the variances is to use the F test. This works for two groups.

    \begin{align*} F = \frac{s_{1}^{2}}{s_{2}^{2}} \end{align*}

For more than two groups, we’ll use different tests (eg, Bartlett’s test, Levene’s test).

Remember that the formula for the sample variance is

equation sample variance

The Null Hypothesis is that the two samples have the same variances:

    \begin{align*} H_{0}: s_{1}^{2}=s_{1}^{2} \end{align*}

The Alternative Hypothesis is that the two samples do not have the same variances:

    \begin{align*} H_{0}: s_{1}^{2}\ne s_{1}^{2} \end{align*}

Note: I prefer to evaluate this as a one-tailed test: identify the larger of the two variances and take that as the numerator Then, the null hypothesis is that

    \begin{align*} H_{0}: s_{1}^{2}\leq s_{1}^{2} \end{align*}

and therefore, the alternative hypothesis is that (ie, a one-tailed test).

    \begin{align*} H_{0}: s_{1}^{2} > s_{1}^{2} \end{align*}

Another way to state equal variance test is that we are testing for homogeneity of variances. You may run across the term homoscedasticity; it is the same thing, just a different three dollar word for “equal variances.”

Stated yet another way, if we reject the null hypothesis, then the variances are unequal or show heterogeneity. An additional and equivalent $3 word for inequality of variances is called heteroscedasticity.

More about the F-test

For the F-test, the null hypothesis is that the variances are equal. This means that the “expected” F value will be one: F = 1.0. (The F-distribution differs from t-distribution because it requires 2 values for DF, and ranges from 1 to infinity for every possible combination of v1 and v2).

To evaluate the null hypothesis we need the degrees of freedom. For the F test we need two different degrees of freedom, one set for each group): from Table 2, Appendix – F distribution, look up 5% Type I error line in this table because we make it one tailed.

I need the F-test statistic at F_{0.05_{1},v_{1},v_{2}}

Examples of difference between two variances, Table 1.

Sample 1: Aggressiveness of Inbred Mice (number of bites in 30 minutes)

Sample 2: Aggressiveness of Outbred Mice (number of bites in 30 minutes)

Table 1. Aggression by inbred and outbred mice.

Sample 1

Aggressiveness of Inbred Mice
(number of bites in 30 minutes)

 Sample 2

Aggressiveness of Outbred Mice
(number of bites in 30 minutes)
3 4
5 10
4 4
3 7
4 7
5 10
4 = mean 7 = mean
  1. Identify the null and alternative hypotheses
  2. Calculate Variances
  3. Calculate F-test
  4. The “test statistic” for this hypothesis test was F = 7.2 / 0.8 = 9.0
  5. Determine Critical Value of the F table (Table 2, Appendix – F distribution)

Example of how to find the critical values of the F distribution for F_{0.05_{2}} and numerator DF_{v_{1}}=5 and denominator DF_{v_{2}}=5.

Table 2. Portion of F distribution, see Appendix – F distribution.

α = 0.05 v1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
v2 1 230
2 19.3
3 9.01
4 6.26
5 6.61 5.79 5.41 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.88 4.82
6

Or, instead of using tables, use R

Rcmdr: Distributions → F distribution → F probabilities

and enter the numbers as shown below (Fig 1).

Screenshot Rcmdr menu F distribution

Figure 1. Screenshot R Commander F distribution probabilities.

This will return the p-value, and you would interpret this against your Type I error rate of 5% as you do for other tests.

From Table 2, Appendix – F distribution we find F_{0.05\left ( 1 \right ),5,5}=5.05

And the p-value = 0.015

pf(c(9), df1=5, df2=5, lower.tail=FALSE)
[1] 0.01537472

Question: Reject or Accept null hypothesis?

Question: What is the biological interpretation or conclusion from this result?

R code

Rather than play around with the tables of critical values, which are awkward and old-school (and I am showing you these stats tables so that you get a feel for the process, not so you’d actually use them in real practice), use Rcmdr to generate the F test and therefore return the F distribution probability value. As you may expect, R provides a number of options for testing the equal variances assumption, including the F test. The F test is limited to only two groups and, because it is a parametric test, it also makes the assumption of normality, so the F test should not be viewed as necessarily the best test for the equal variances assumption among groups. We present it here because it is a logical test to understand and because of its relevance to the Mean Square ratios in the ANOVA procedures.

So, without further justification, here is the presentation on how to get the F test in Rcmdr. At the end of this section I present a better procedure than the F test for evaluating the equal variance assumption called the Levene test.

Return to the bite data in the table above and enter the data into an R data frame. Note that the data in the table above are unstacked; R expects the data to be stacked, so either create a stacked worksheet and transcribe the data appropriately into the cells of the worksheet, or, go ahead and enter the values into two separate columns then use the Stack variables in active data set… command from the Data menu in Rcmdr.

Then, proceed to perform the F test.

Rcmdr: Statistics → Variances → Two variances F-test… 

The first context menu popup is where you enter the variables (Fig 2).

Screenshot Rcmdr variances F-test menu

Figure 2. Screenshot data options R Commander F test

Because there are only two variables in the data set and because Strain contains the text labels of inbred or outbred whereas the other variable is numeric data type, R will correctly select the variables for you by default. Select the “Options” tab to set the parameters of the F test (Fig 3).

Screenshot Rcmdr F-test menu

Figure 3. Screenshot menu options R Commander F test.

When you are finished setting the alternative hypothesis and confidence levels, proceed with the F test by clicking the OK button.

    F test to compare two variances

data:  mice.aggression
F = 0.1111, num df = 5, denom df = 5, p-value = 0.03075
alternative hypothesis: true ratio of variances is not equal to 1
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.01554788 0.79404243
sample estimates:
ratio of variances 
         0.1111111

End of R output.

Levene’s test of equal variances

We will discuss this test in more detail following our presentation on ANOVA. For now, we note that the test works on two or more groups and is a conservative test of the equal variance assumption. Nonparametric tests in general make fewer assumptions about the data and in particular make no assumption of normality like the F test. It is in this context that the Levene’s test would be preferable over the F test. Below we present only how to calculate the statistic in R and Rcmdr and provide the output for the same mouse data set.

Assuming the data are stacked, obtain the Levene’s test in Rcmdr by clicking on (Fig 4).

Rcmdr: Statistics → Variances → Levene’s test… 

Screenshot menu options R Commander Levene's test

Figure 4. Screenshot menu options R Commander Levene’s test.

Select the median and the factor variable (in our case “Strain”) and the numeric outcome variable (“Bites”), then click OK button.

Tapply(bites ~ strain, var, na.action=na.omit, data=mice.aggression) # variances by group
inbred outbred
   0.8     7.2

leveneTest(bites ~ strain, data=mice.aggression, center="median")
Levene's Test for Homogeneity of Variance (center = median)
      Df F value  Pr(>F)
group  1       4 0.07339 .
      10
---
Signif. codes:  0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

End of R output

Compare the p-values. In both cases — F test and Levene’s test — we’re testing the same hypothesis (equal variances), but the p-values do not agree between the parametric F test and the nonparametric Levene’s test! If we were to go by the results of the F test, p-value was 0.031, less than out Type I error of 5% and we would tentatively conclude that the assumption of equal variances may not apply. On the other hand, if we go with the Levene’s test the p-value was 0.074, which is greater than our Type I error rate of 5% and we would therefore conclude the opposite, that the assumption of equal variances might apply! Both conclusions can’t hold, so which test result of equal variances do we prefer, the parametric F test or the nonparametric Levene’s test? Answer — we’d go with Levene’s because the F test is parametric and, therefore, also assumes normality.

Cahoy’s bootstrap method

Draft. Cahoy (2010). Variance-based statistic bootstrap test of heterogeneity of variances. we discuss bootstrap methods in Chapter 19.2; in brief, bootstrapping involves resampling the dataset and computing a statistic on each sample. This method may be more powerful, that is, more likely to correctly reject the null hypothesis when warranted, compared to Levene’s test.

for now, install package testequavar.

Function for testing two samples.

equa2vartest(inbred, outbred, 0.05, 999)

R output

[[1]]
[1] "Decision: Reject the Null"
$Alpha
[1] 0.05
$NumberOfBootSamples
[1] 999
$BootPvalue
[1] 0.006

The output “Decision: Reject the Null” reflects output from a box-type acceptance region.

Compare results from Levene’s test: p-value 0.07339 suggests accept hypothesis of equal variances, whereas bootstrap method indicates variances heterogenous, ie, reject equal variance hypothesis. However, re-running the test without setting the seed for R’s pseudorandom number generator will result in different p-values. For example, I re-ran Cahoy’s test five times with the following results:

0.008
0.006
0.002
0.01
0.004

 

Questions

  1. Test assumption of equal variances by Bartlett’s method and by Levene’s test on OliveMoment variable from the Comet tea data set introduced in Chapter 12.1. Do the methods agree? If not, which test result would you choose?
    • BONUS. Retest homogeneous variance hypothesis by equa3vartest(Copper.Hazel, Copper, Hazel, 0.05, 999). Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis by bootstrap method?
  2. Test assumption of equal variances by Bartlett’s method and by Levene’s test on Height from the O’hia data set introduced in Chapter 12.7. Do the methods agree? If not, which result would you choose?
    • BONUS. Retest homogeneous variance hypothesis by equa3vartest(M.1, M.2, M.3, 0.05, 999). Reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis by bootstrap method?

Quiz Chapter 13.4

Tests for Equal Variances

R code reminders

The bootstrap method expects the variables in unstacked format. A simple method to extract the variables from the stacked data is to use a command like the following. For example, extract OliveMoment values for Copper-Hazel treatment.

Copper.Hazel <- cometTea$OliveMoment[1:10]

For Copper, Hazel, replace above with [11:20], and [21-30] respectively. Note: changed variable name from Copper-Hazel to Copper.Hazel. The hyphen is a reserved character in R.

Chapter 13 contents

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?

Note 1: Data is plural = a bunch of points or values; datum is the singular and rarely used.

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 11. 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 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 12. A histogram which displays a sampling of data with the same mean of 10 (arrow marks the spot) displayed in Fig. 3, but with a smaller standard deviation (sd) of 5 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.

    \begin{align*}range = X_{max} - X_{min}\end{align*}

Arrange the data from low to high, subtract the minimum, Xmin, from the maximum, Xmax, 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 Xmin and Xmax. 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.

    \begin{align*}sample \ mean \ deviation = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left | X_{i} - \bar{X} \right |}{n}\end{align*}

Subtract each observation from the sample mean; each X_{i}- \bar{X} is called a deviate: some observations will be positive (greater than \bar{X}) and some will be negative (less than \bar{X}).

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.

Note 2: The mean deviation will always be positive, which is why we take the absolute. By taking the absolute value of each deviate, then the sum is greater than zero. Now, we rarely use this statistic by itself — but that difference X_{i}- \bar{X} is integral to much of the statistical tests we will use. Look for this difference in other equations!

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

    \begin{align*}\sigma^2 = \frac{\sum \left ( X_{i} - \mu \right )^2}{N}\end{align*}

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

    \begin{align*}\sigma = \sqrt{\sigma^2}\end{align*}

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

    \begin{align*}s^2 = \frac{\sum \left ( X_{i} - \bar{X} \right )^2}{n-1}\end{align*}

and the equation of the sample standard deviation

    \begin{align*}s = \sqrt{s^2}\end{align*}

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.

 

Note 3: See the difference between calculation of the population parameter and the sample statistic estimates? The difference between the formulas for population and sample variances — We divide by n - 1 instead of N. This is Bessel’s correction and we will take a few moments here and in class to show you why this correction makes sense. Bessel’s correction to the sample variance illustrates a basic issue in statistics: when estimating something, we want the estimator (ie, the equation), to be an unbiased value for the population parameter it is intended to estimate.

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 (\pm standard deviation) of height, weight, and waist circumference of 20-39 year old men USA.

Years Height, inches Weight, pounds Waist
Circumference,
inches
1999 – 2000 69.4 (0.1) 185.8 (2.0) 37.1 (0.3)
2007 – 2008 69.4 (0.2) 189.9 (2.1) 37.6 (0.3)
2015 – 2016 69.3 (0.1) 196.9 (3.1) 38.7 (0.4)

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.

    \begin{align*}Z = \frac{X_{i} - \mu}{\sigma}\end{align*}

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 \pm 1 \cdot \sigma of \bar{X}

​ 95.46% of the data will lie between \pm 2 \cdot \sigma of \bar{X} 

​ 99.0% of the data will lie between \pm 3 \cdot \sigma of \bar{X}

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. (\pm 1\cdot \sigma).

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. + 1\cdot \sigma (replace σ = 3) and 5 ft. 8 in. = 5 ft. 11 in. - 1\cdot \sigma (again, replace σ = 3″).

Can generalize to any distribution. Chebyshev’s inequality (or theorem) guarantees that no more than a particular fraction 1/k^2 of observations can be a specified k standard deviations distance away from the mean (k needs to be greater than 1). Thus, for k = 2 standard deviations, we expect a minimum of 75% of values within (1-1/2^2) two standard deviations away from the mean, or for k = 3, then 89% of values will be within (1-1/3^2) 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 \sigma) 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 1/2.67^2 = 0.140, or 14% of observations less than or greater than the mean (\pm \mu).

Our question asks only about expected number of observations greater than + 2.67\cdot \sigma; 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 + 2.67\cdot \sigma from the mean (see R code in Note box). We extend the Z-score work in Chapter 6.7.

Note 4: R code:

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

or alternatively

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

R output

[1] 4

R Commander command

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Normal distribution → Normal probabilities …, select Upper tail.

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 1/1.97^2 = 0.257, 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

    \begin{align*}X_{i} - \bar{X}\end{align*}

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, sgm, as

    \begin{align*}s_{gm} =\pm exp\sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}\left (ln\frac{X_{i}}{\bar{X}_{gm}} \right )^{2}}{n-1}}\end{align*}

where exp is the exponential function, ln refers to natural logarithm, and \bar{X}_{gm} 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. Plot of the standard deviation (StDev) by the mean. Data sets were simulated.

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.

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).

equation Coefficient of Variation (CV)

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 → s_{\bar{X}} = \frac{s}{\sqrt{n}}

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

Chapter 3 contents