6.2 – Ratios and probabilities

Introduction

One common objective of a research project is comparison between quantities: one effective way to communicate a comparison is to construct a ratio. Ratios provide a standardized way to compare different data sets. The purpose of this page is introduce the wealth of types of ratios used for quantification of comparisons, from indexes to ratios.

Let’s review our definitions again. An event is some occurrence. As you know, a ratio is one number, the numerator, divided by another called the denominator. A proportion is a ratio where the numerator is a part of the whole. A rate is a ratio of the frequency of an event during a certain period of time. A rate may or may not be a proportion, and a ratio need not be a proportion, but proportions and rates are all kinds of ratios. If we combine ratios, proportions, and/or rates, we construct an index.

Ratios

Yes, data analysis can be complicated, but we start with this basic idea. Much of the statistics is based on frequency measures, eg, ratios, rates, proportions, indexes, and scales.

Ratios are the association between two numbers, one random variable divided by another. Ratios are used as descriptors and the numerator and denominator do not need to be of the same kind. Business and economics are full of ratios. For example, return on investment (ROI), eg, earnings equals net income divided by number of shares outstanding, the Price-Earnings, or P/E ratio, is the ratio of the price of a stock to the earnings per stock, as well as many others are used to summarize performance of a business, and to compare performance of one business against another.

Ratios are deceptively convenient way to standardize a variable for comparisons, ie, how many times one number contains another. For example, when estimating bird counts for different areas, or different birding effort (intensity, time searched), we may correct counts by accounting for area in which counts were made or the total time spent counting, for a per-unit ratio (Liermann et al 2004).

Practice: There were 1,326 day undergraduate students enrolled in 2014 at Chaminade University of Honolulu and the Sullivan Library added 8469 new items (ebooks, journals, etc,) to its collection during 2014. What is the ratio of new items per student?

Data collected from Chaminade University website at www.chaminade.edu on 3 July 2014.

Practice: For another example, what is ratio of annual institutional aid a student at Chaminade University may expect to receive compared to a student at Hawaii Pacific University?

Thus, in 2014, Chaminade offered more than twice the institutional aid to its students then does HPU (both institutions are private universities, data from retrieved on 3 July 2014 from www.cappex.com).

Relative change, Fold-change and orders of magnitude

It’s common practice to report on the amount of change between two quantities recorded over time. Relative change (often percentage) describes change relative to an initial value. Relative change in root length b

To make percent increase (decrease), simply multiple 100%.

(1)  

The ratio between two quantities, eg, to compare mRNA expression levels of genes from organisms exposed to different conditions, researchers may report fold-change. Fold change is often reported as log base 2 change.

Why log base 2? Symmetry and ease of reporting. A doubling becomes +1 and a halving becomes -1. Without log transformation, doubling is +2, but having is +0.5.

Relative change is useful for reporting percent changes, fold change for ratios, although if the change is small in amount, then relative change can be misleading, eg, value goes from five to ten, then the relative change is 100%, but effectively, a very small change in absolute units. Similarly, fold change becomes a large, but likely meaningless comparison, if the denominator is close to zero.

An example of calculation of fold change. Rates of the expression from cells exposed to heavy metal divided by expression under basal conditions. Gene expression under different treatments may be evaluated by calculating fold-change as the log base2 of the ratio of expression of a gene for one treatment divided by expression of same gene from control conditions. Copper is an essential trace element, but excess exposure to copper is known to damage human health, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. One proposed mechanism is that cell injury promotes an epithelial-to-mesenchymal shift. In a pilot study (N.I.H. INBRE P20RR016467), we investigated gene expression changes by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) in a rat lung Type II alveolar cell line exposed to copper sulfate compared to unexposed cells. Record cycle threshold values, C_T, for each gene, where C_T is number of cycles required for the fluorescent signal to exceed background levels; C_T is inversely proportional to amount of cDNA (mRNA) in the sample. Genes investigated were ECAD, FOXC2, NCAD, SMAD, SNAI1, TWIST, and VIM, with ATCB as reference gene. ECAD expression is marker of epithelial cells, whereas FOXC2, NCAD, SNAI1, TWIST, and VIM expression marker of mesenchymal cells. After calculating values, geometric means of normalized values of three replicates each are shown in Table 1.

myBits <- intToBits(8) 
paste(as.character(myBits),collapse="")

Table 1. Mean and fold change of gene expression values from qPCR for several genes from a rat lung cell line.*

* INBRE funding, P20RR016467.

At face value, following four hour exposure to copper sulfate in media, some evidence that the epithelial cell line adopted gene expression profile of mesenchyme-like cells. However, weakness of fold-change is clear from Table 1: the quantity is sensitive to small values. ECAD expression in the cell line is low, thus high numbers of PCR cycles (mean = 36) and treated cells not much fewer (mean = 34.4).

Orders of magnitude

In addition to fold change, order of magnitude is another common way to compare quantities. While fold change returns the multiplier between two numbers, order of magnitude generally refers to differences in multiples of ten, logarithmic.

Thus, a difference of one order of magnitude is the number multiplied by 10¹, three orders of magnitude is the number multiplied by 10³, and so on. A change from 10 to 100 is a one order of magnitude increase; the same change, 10 to 100, is a ten-fold change. It’s a difference of scale. If a person’s salary increases by 3%, from $49K to $50,470, reporting this as an “order of magnitude” increase is nonsensical as a communication device (magnitude of change is just 0.01). By contrast, fold change for the same increase would be 1.03 — also indicative of a negligible increase, but a cleaner representation.

Rates

Rates are a class of ratios in which the denominator is some measure of time. For example, the four year graduation rate of some Hawaii universities are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Percent students graduation with bachelor’s degrees within four years or six years (cohort 2014, data source NCES.ed.gov)

Examples of rates

Rates are common in biology. To name just a few

• Basal metabolic rate (BMR), often measured by indirect calorimetry, reported in units kiloJoules per hour.
• Birth rates and mortality (death) rates, components of population growth rate.
• Extinction rate, how often over a given time species go extinct.
• Growth rate, which may refer to growth of the individual (somatic growth rate), or increase of number of individuals in a population per unit time.
• Molecular clock hypothesis, rate of amino acid (protein) or nucleotide (DNA) substitution is approximately constant per year over evolutionary time.
• Mutation rate, frequency of new mutations in a DNA sequence of an organism over time.
• Photosynthetic rate, convert light energy into chemical energy.
• Phred quality score, error rates of incorrectly called nucleotide bases by the sequencer.

Proportions

Proportions are also ratios, but they are used to describe one part to the whole. For example, 902 women (self-reported) day undergraduate students enrolled in 2014 at Chaminade University in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Practice: Given that the total enrollment for Chaminade in 2014 was of 1,326, calculate the proportion of female students to the total student body.

More practice:  A common statistic in agriculture is germination percentage, count the number of seeds that sprout over a period of time divided by total number of seeds planted multiplied by 100. Figure 1 shows an example of a germination trial for five tomato seeds.  Seed in position 3 (left to right 1 – 5) failed to germinate, whereas the other four seeds display range of seedling growth.  (A seed coat is observed next to plant 2.)

Figure 1. Example planting of five tomato seeds, day 5, on agar Petri dish (M. Dohm).

Observations conducted over 10 days. Germination defined as evidence of radicle by day 10. Data collected by student for biostatistics project. A random sample of results from three plates is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Germination of tomato seeds on agar Petri dishes.

* Random sample of three plates drawn from among 30 plates.

We calculate the percent germination for the 15 seeds planted as

Thus, for the sample of plates the germination percent was 80%, which, coincidently, is the same result if germination percent was calculated for the five seeds displayed in Figure 1.

Beginning in Chapter 7 – Probability, Risk Analysis, we introduce and use a number of proportions, for example incidence and prevalence are proportions, as is PPV — positive predictive value. Sensitivity and specificity are both proportions and also qualified as indexes.

Comparing proportions

In some cases you may wish to compare two proportions or two ratios. The hypothesis tested is the difference between the two ratios, and the test is if the confidence interval of the difference includes zero. If it does, then we would conclude there is no statistical difference between the two proportions.  In R, use the prop.test function. For example, 63 women were on team sport rosters at Chaminade in 2014, a proportion of 59% of all student athletes (n = 106). Recall from the example above that women were 68% of all students at Chaminade University. Title IX compliance requires that a university “maintain policies, practices and programs that do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender” (NCAA, INCLUSION AND BELONGING Championing Women in Sports). In terms of athletic programs, then, universities are required to provide participation opportunities for women and men that are substantially proportionate to their respective rates of enrollment of full-time undergraduate students.

Consider Chaminade University: Is there a statistical difference between proportion of women athletes and their proportion of total enrollment? We introduce statistical inference in Chapter 8, but for now, this is a test of the null hypothesis that the difference between the two proportions is zero.

At the R prompt type (remember, anything after the # sign is a comment and ignored by R).

women = c(62,902)  #where 62 is the number of women athletes and 902 is the number of women students
students = c(106,1326)  #106 is the number of student athletes and 1326 is all students
prop.test(women,students)  #the default is a two-tailed test, ie, no group differences

And R returns

2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction
 data: women out of students
X-squared = 3.6331, df = 1, p-value = 0.05664
alternative hypothesis: two.sided
95 percent confidence interval:
 -0.197532407 0.006861073
sample estimates:
 prop 1 prop 2 
0.5849057 0.6802413

What is the conclusion of the test?

When you compare two groups, you’re asking whether the two groups are equal (the null hypothesis). Mathematically, that’s the same as saying the difference between the two groups is equal to zero.

First check the lower and upper limits of the confidence interval. A confidence interval is one way to report a range of plausible values for an estimate (see Ch 7.6 – Confidence intervals). It’s called a confidence interval because a probability is assigned to the range of values; a 95% confidence interval is interpreted as we’re 95% certain the true population value is somewhere between the reported limits. For our Chaminade University Title IX question, recall that we are asking whether the value of zero is included. The lower limit was -0.1975 and some change; the upper limit was 0.0068 and some change. Thus, zero is included and we would conclude that there was no statistical difference between the two proportions.

The second relevant output to look at is the p-value, or probability value. If the p-value is less than 5%, we typically reject the tested hypothesis. We will talk more about p-values and their relationship to inference testing in Chapter 8; for now, pay attention to the confidence interval (introduced in Chapter 3.4); if zero is included, then we conclude no substantial differences between the two proportions.

Indexes

Indexes are composite statistics that combine indicators. They condense complex diagnostic performance data into a single, universally understood numerical indicator.

Indexes are common in biology, and well-known business and economics indexes are reported on every day, eg, Dow Jones Industrial average combines stock prices from 30 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange and the CPI, or Consumer Protection Index, constructed by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics from a “market basket of consumer goods and services, used by the government and other institutions to track inflation. The CPI itself is made up of numerous indexes to account for regional price differences and other factors.

Some indexes presented in this book include

• Grade point average
• Body Mass Index (BMI)
• Comet assay indexes (tail intensity, tail length, tail moment) are used to assess DNA damage among organisms exposed to environmental contaminants (eg, Mincarelli et al., 2019).
• Encephalization index, ratio of brain to body weight among species. Used to compare cognitive abilities.
• Sensitivity, specificity, NNT — number needed to treat, odds-ratio and RRR and related. See Chapter 7.1 – Probability, Risk Analysis.
• Species diversity indexes, measures of species richness and abundance. See Chapter 20.8.

Scales

Agreement scales for surveys, eg, Likert scale or sliding scale (Sullivan and Artino 2013). For example, after learning about Theranos, students were asked:

How serious is this violation in your opinion?

a 5-point scale.

Although an intuitive measure, how fast can an individual run, challenging to determine whether individual’s performance is at physiological maximum. Particularly for measures of performance capacity that involves behavior (motivation), may apply a race quality scale (eg., binary scale “good” or “bad” Husak et al 2006).

These examples reflect ordinal scales. Many of the nonparametric tests discussed in Chapter 15 are suitable for analysis of scales.

Limitations of ratios

Although the indexes may be easy to communicate, statistically, indexes have many drawbacks. Chief among these, variation in ratios may be due to change in numerator or denominator. Ratios and any index calculated by combining ratios seem simple enough, but have complicated statistical properties. Over the years, several authors have made critical suggestions for use of ratios and indexes. Some key references are Packard and Boardman (1988), Jasienski and Oikos (1999), Nee et al (2005), and Karp et al (2012).  For example, ratios, computing trait value by body weight, are often used to compare some trait among individuals or species that differ in body size. However, this normalization attempt only removes the covariation between size and the trait if there is a 1:1 relationship between size and the trait. More typically, relationship between the trait and body size is allometric, ie, the slope is not equal to one.  Thus, ratio will over-correct for large size and under-correct for small size. The proper solution is to conduct the comparison as part of an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA, see Chapter 17.6).

Example

Which is the safer mode of travel: car or airplane?

The following discussion covers travel safety in the United States of America for a typical year, 2000*.

Between 2000 and 2023, there were 779 deaths associated with accidents of major air carriers in the USA. Year 2009 was the last multiple-casualty crash of a major U.S. carrier (Colgan Air Flight 3407); between 2010 and 2021, two fatal accidents, two fatalities were reported.

We’ve all heard the claim that it’s much safer to fly with a major airline than it is to travel by car (eg, Flying is getting scary. But is it still safe? CNN June 20, 2024). There are a variety of arguments, but one statistical argument goes as follows. In 2000 in the United States, 638,902,993 persons traveled by major air carrier, whereas there were 190,625,023 licensed drivers. In 2000, 92 persons died in air travel (again, major carriers only), whereas 37,526 persons died in vehicle crashes (includes drivers and passengers). Thus, the risk of dying in air travel is given as the proportion , or 1.44e-07 (0.000014%), whereas the comparable proportion for death by motor vehicle is , or 1.97e-04 (0.0197%).

In other words, we can expect one death (actually 1.4) for every ten million airline passengers, but 20 deaths (actually 19.7) for every one hundred thousand licensed drivers. Thus, flying is a thousand times safer than driving (actual result 1,367 times; divide the rate of motor vehicle-caused deaths for licensed drivers by the rate for airlines). Proportions are hard to compare sometimes, especially when the per capita numbers differ (ten million vs. 100,000 in this case).

We can put the numbers onto a probability tree and get a sense of what we are looking at (Fig 2).

Figure 2. A probability tree to help visualize comparison of deaths (“yes”) by car travel and by airline travel in the United States for the year 2000.

Comparing rates and proportions

Without going into the details, we will do so in Chapter 9 Inferences on Categorical Data, comparing two rates is a chi-square, χ², contingency table type of problem. More specifically, however, it is a binomial problem (Chapter 3.1, Chapter 6.5); there are two outcomes, death or no death, and we can describe how likely the event is to occur as a proportion. Because the numbers are large, we can use rely on the normal distribution for comparing the two proportions. We’ll explain this more in the next chapters, but for now it may be enough to present the equation for the comparison of two proportions under the assumption of normality, proportion z test.

and the null hypothesis (see Chapter 8) tested as that the two proportions are equal. This may be written as

H0 : p₁-p₂=0

We can assign statistical significance to the differences in events for the two modes of travel under this set of assumptions. Rcmdr has a nice menu-driven system for comparing proportions, but for now I will simply list the R commands.

At the R prompt type each line then submit the command.

total = 100000000
prop.test(c(19700,14),c(total,total)))

And the R output

prop.test(c(19700,14),c(total,total))

    2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity
    correction

data:  c(19700, 14) out of c(total, total)
X-squared = 19658, df = 1, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: two.sided
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.0001940984 0.0001996216
sample estimates:
  prop 1   prop 2 
1.97e-04 1.40e-07

There’s a bit to unpack here. R is consistent; when it reports results of a statistical test, it typically returns the value of the test statistic (χ² = 19658), the degrees of freedom for the test (df = 1), and the p-value (< 2.2e-16).

By convention in statistics, if a p-value, where “p” stands for probability, is less than 5%, we would say that our results are statistically significant from the null hypothesis.  Looks pretty convincing to me, the difference of 19,700 deaths compared to 14 deaths is clearly different by any criterion and by the results of the statistical test, the p-value is several orders of magnitude smaller than 5%.

Safer to fly. By far, not even close. And similar conclusions would be reached if we compare different years, or averages over many years, or if we used a different way to express the amount of travel (eg, miles/year) by these modes of transportation.

Are you convinced, really? Is it safer to fly?

Let’s try a little statistical reasoning — what assumptions did I make to do these calculations? We recognize immediately that many more people travel by car: that there are way more cars being driven then there are airline planes being flown. The question then is, have we properly adjusted for this difference? Here are a few considerations. My source for the numbers is the NTS 2001 book published by the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. Department of Transportation). We are conducting a risk analysis, and the first step is to make sure that we are comparing “apples with apples.” Here are two alternative solutions that at least compare, “Red Delicious” apples with “Macintosh” apples.

Option 1. There are many, many more licensed drivers than there are licensed commercial airline pilots. The standard comparison offered in the background above compared deaths per licensed car driver, but a different metric for air travel, the rate per passenger. This isn’t as bad of a comparison as it may seem — after all, the majority of deaths in car accidents are of the driver themselves. But it isn’t that hard to make the direct comparison — just find out how many commercial pilots there are — a direct comparison with licensed car drivers (stated above as 190,625,023). From the FAA we see that in 2009 there were 125,738 persons with commercial certificates. Since there are only 20 major airline carriers in the United States now (a few more were active in 2000, but we’ll put this aside), the number of licenses is an over estimate of the actual number we want — how many pilots of commercial airlines — but lets use this number for starters — after all, just because a person has a drivers license doesn’t mean they drive or ride in a car.

Number of deaths/yr: Let’s use 2000 data, a typical year prior to 9/11 (and excluding the Covid-19 pandemic). Airlines: 92 deaths; motor vehicles (includes passenger cars, trucks, etc, but not motorcycles): 37,526 deaths (drivers = 25,567; passengers = 10,695; 86 others).

Which mode of travel is riskier? I get a rate a rate of 7.3 X 10^-4 deaths per commercial pilot, or

92125738

compared to a rate for car drivers of 1.97 X 10^-4 deaths.

To summarize what we have so far, I get a result that suggests car travel is almost four times safer

7.3 x 10-41.97 x 10-4→7.31.97 = 3.7

then traveling by commercial airliner. In whole numbers, these results translate to seven deaths for every 10,000 commercial pilots compared to two deaths for every 10,000 licensed car drivers (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Comparing totals of deaths adjusted by numbers of licensed drivers and by licensed commercial airline pilots in the United States.

R work follows. Enter and submit each command on a separate line in the script window

total = 10000
prop.test(c(2,7),c(total,total))

And the R output

prop.test(c(2,7),c(total,total))

    2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity
    correction

data:  c(2, 7) out of c(total, total)
X-squared = 1.7786, df = 1, p-value = 0.1823
alternative hypothesis: two.sided
95 percent confidence interval:
 -0.001187816  0.000187816
sample estimates:
prop 1 prop 2 
 2e-04  7e-04

What’s happened? The p-value (0.1823) is not less than 5% and so we would conclude under this scenario that there is no difference between the proportions of deaths between the two modes of travel. Let’s keep going.

Option 2. There are many, many more cars on the road then there are airplanes flying commercial passengers. The standard comparison offered in the background information above identified death rates per individual driver, but used a different metric for airline travelers (number of deaths per passenger), which confuses individuals with travelers: what we need is the number of individuals that traveled by airliner, not the total number of passengers (which is many times higher, because of repeat flyers). How can we make a fair comparison for the two modes of travel? Most people never fly whereas most people drive (or ride in a car) frequently in the United States. To me, risk of travel might be better expressed in terms of a per trip rate. I want to know, what are my chances of dying each time I get into my car versus each time I fly on a commercial jet in the United States?

Number of trips/yr. For airlines, I use the number of departures (2000 = 8,951,773). But for cars, we need to decide how to get a similar number. It’s not available directly from the DOT (and would be difficult to get — studies with randomly selected drivers can yield as many as 5 trips per day for licensed drivers). I took the number of licensed drivers and bound the problem — at the low end, let’s say that only 2 trips per week (eg, 50 weeks) are taken by licensed drivers (100 trips); at the upper end, let’s take 2 trips per day per week, or 500 trips/year. Thus, at the low end, we have 1.91 X10¹⁰ trips per year; at the upper end, 9.53 X 10¹⁰ trips per year.

Which mode of travel is riskier? Using the number of deaths/yr listed above in Option 1, I get a rate of 1.03 X 10^-5 deaths/trip for air carriers

928.95 x 10⁶

compared to a rate of 1.97 X 10^-6 deaths/trip for cars (lower bound) or 3.9 X 10^-7 deaths/trip for cars (upper bound). Here’s what the numbers look for in a tree (taking the lower number of trips per year for cars, Fig 4).

Figure 4. Comparing totals of deaths adjusted by numbers of car trips and by numbers of airline trips in the United States.

R work follow

total = 10000000
prop.test(c(20,103),c(total,total))

And the R output

prop.test(c(20,103),c(total,total))

    2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity
    correction

data:  c(20, 103) out of c(total, total)
X-squared = 54.667, df = 1, p-value = 1.428e-13
alternative hypothesis: two.sided
95 percent confidence interval:
 -1.057370e-05 -6.026305e-06
sample estimates:
  prop 1   prop 2 
2.00e-06 1.03e-05

Now we have another really small p-value (1.428e-13), which suggests a statistically significant difference between the modes of air travel, but the difference in deaths is switched. I now have a result that suggests car travel is much safer than traveling with a commercial airliner! These calculations suggest that you are as much as 26 (upper bounds, five times for lower bounds) times more likely to die from a plane crash then you are behind the wheel. In whole numbers, these results indicate one death for every 100,000 airline flights compared to 1 death for every 500,000 (lower estimate) or 2,500,000 car trips!

Do I have it right and the standard answer is wrong? As Lee Corso used to say on ESPN’s College GameDay program, “Not so fast, my friend!” (Wikipedia). Mark Twain was right to hold the skeptic’s view. Begin by listing the assumptions and by checking the logic of the comparisons (there are still holes in my logic!!). For one, if I am considering my risk of dying by mode of travel, it is far more likely that I will be in a car accident than I will an airline accident, simply because I don’t travel by airline that much. When we consider lifetime risk, we can see why the assertion that it is “safer to fly than drive” is true — we’re far more likely to belong to one of the reference populations involving automobiles (eg, those who drive frequently, for many years) than we are to be among the frequent flyers reference populations.

Questions

1. Review and provide your own examples for

• index
• rate
• ratio
• proportion

3. Like travel safety, we are often confronted by risk comparisons like the following: Which animal is more deadly to humans, dogs or sharks? Between the two, which lead to more hospitalizations in the United States? Work through your assumptions and use results from the International Shark Attack file.

• If a person lives in Nebraska, and never visits the ocean, how does a “shark attack” risk analysis apply? Is it a fair comparison to make between dog attacks and shark attacks? Why or why not.

4. Go to cappex.com/colleges and update institutional (gift) aid offered by Chaminade and HPU. Compare to University of Hawaii-Manoa.

5. Calculate percent increase for

• Annual atmospheric CO2 1980 and 2024.

Quiz Chapter 6.2

Ratios and probabilities

Start Quiz

Question

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

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

Your Answers

Chapter 6 content

• Introduction
• Some preliminaries
• Ratios and probabilities
• 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

6.7 – Normal distribution and the normal deviate (Z)

Introduction

In chapter 3.3 we introduced the normal distribution and the Z score, aka normal deviate, as part of a discussion about how some knowledge about characteristics of the dispersion of our data sampled from a population could be used to calculate how many samples we need (the empirical rule). We introduced Chebyshev’s inequality as a general approach to this problem, where little is known about the distribution of the population and contrasted it with the Z score, for cases where the distribution is known to be Gaussian or the normal distribution. The normal distribution is one of the most important distributions in classical statistics. All normal distributions are bell-shaped and symmetric about the mean. To describe a normal distribution only two parameters are needed: the population mean, μ, and the population standard deviation, σ. The normal distribution with mean equal to zero and standard deviation equal to one is called the standard normal, or Z distribution. With use of the Z score any normal distribution can be quickly converted to the standard normal distribution.

Proportions of a Normal Distribution

This concept will become increasingly important for the many statistical tests we will learn over the next few weeks. What is the proportion of the populations that is greater than some specific value? Below (Fig 1), again, I have generated a large data set, now with population mean µ = 5 and σ = 2. The red line corresponds to the equation of the normal curve using our values of µ = 5 and σ = 2.

Figure 1. Frequency of observations expected to be greater than 7 (red bars) from a large population with mean µ = 5 and σ = 2.

R code for Fig 1.

set.seed(123)
myData <- rnorm(1000, mean = 5, sd = 2)
h <- hist(myData, breaks = 20, plot = FALSE) 
threshold <- 7
# Bars with midpoints greater than threshold will be "red", 
# and others will be "white."
bar_colors <- ifelse(h$mids > threshold, "red", "white")
plot(h, col = bar_colors, xlab = "Value", ylab = "Frequency")

Note that this is a crucial step! We assume that our sample distribution is really a sample from a population density (= “area under the curve”) function (= “an equation”) for a normal random (= “population”) variable.

Once I (you) make this assumption, then we have powerful and easy to use tools at our command to answer questions like

Question: What proportion of the population is greater than 7 (Fig 1, colored in red)?

This gets to the heart of the often-asked question, How many samples should I measure? If we know something about the mean and the variability, then we can predict how many samples will be of a particular kind. Let’s solve the problem.

The Z score

We could use the formula for the normal curve (and a lot of repetitions), but fortunately, some folks have provided tables that short-cut this procedure. R and other programs also can find these numbers because the formulas are “built in” to the base packages. First, let’s introduce a simple formula that lets us standardize our population numbers so that we can use established tables of probabilities for the normal distribution.

Below, we will see how to use Rcmdr for these kinds of problems.

However, it’s one of the basic tasks in statistics that you should be able to do by hand. We’ll use the Z score as a way to take advantage of known properties of the standard normal curve.

Z = 1 (with the mean and SD). Z (say “Z-score”) is called the normal deviate (aka “standard normal score”; it is also called the “Z-score”); it gives us a shortcut for finding the proportion of data greater than 7 in this case).

We use the normal deviate to do a couple of things; one use is to standardize a sample of observations so that they have a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one (the Z distribution). The data would then said to have been normalized.

The second use is to make predictions about how often a particular observation is likely to be encountered. As you can imagine, this last use is very helpful for designing an experiment — if we need to see a specified difference, we can conduct a pilot study (or refer to the literature) to determine a mean and level of variability for our observation of choice, plug these back into the normal equation and predict how likely we can expect to see a particular difference. In other words, this is one way to answer that question — how many observations need I make for my experiment to be valid?

Table of normal distribution

A portion of the table of the normal curve is provided at our web site and in your workbook. For our discussions, here’s another copy to look at (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Portion of the table of the normal distribution. Only values equal to or greater than Z = 0 are visible.

See Table 1 in the Appendix for a full version of the normal table.

We read values of Z from the first column and the first row. For Z = 0.23 we would scan the top row, scoot over to fourth column, then trace to where the row and column intersect (Fig 3); the frequency of occurrence of values at Z = 0.23 is 0.409046 or 40.9% (Fig 3).

Figure 3. Highlight Z = 0.23, frequency is 0.409046.

Z on the standard normal table is going to range between -4 and +4, with Z = 0 corresponding to 0.500. The Normal table values are symmetrical about the mean of zero.

What to make of the values of Z, from -4, -3, … +2, +3, up to +4 and beyond?  These are the standard deviations! Recall that using the Z score you corrected to mean of zero (got it!), and a standard deviation of one! A Z of 2 is twice the standard deviation; a Z = 3 is therefore three times the standard deviation, and so forth. The distribution is symmetrical: you get the same frequency for negative as for positive values. So on the “X” axis on a standard normal distribution, we have units of standard deviation plus (greater) or minus (less) than the mean. In Figure 4, area less than -1 standard deviations is highlighted (Fig 4).

Figure 4. Plot of standard normal distribution; area less than -1 σ.

R code for Fig 4.

set.seed(123)
myData2 <- rnorm(100000, mean = 0, sd = 1)
threshold <- -1
bar_colors <- ifelse(h$mids < threshold, "red", "white")
# Additional code used, same as Figure 1.

Question. How many multiples of standard deviations would you have for a Z score of Z = 1.75?

Answer = 1.75 times

Examples

See Table 1 in the Appendix for a full version of the normal table as you read this section.

What proportion of the data set will have values greater than 7? After applying our Z score equation, I get Z = 1.0 and for a Z of 1.0 = 0.1587 or 15.87% of the observations are greater than 7.

What proportion of the data set will have values less than -7? After applying our Z score equation, I get Z = -1.0. Taking advantage of symmetry argument, I just take my Z = -1.0 and make it positive — instead of values smaller than -1.0 we now have values greater than +1.0. And for a Z of 1.0 = 0.1587 or 15.87% of the observations are greater than 7, which means that 15.87% will be -7 or smaller.

What proportion of the data set will have values greater than 8? Again, apply the Z score equation I get Z of 1.5 = 0.0668 or 6.68% of the observations are greater than Z.

What proportion of the population is between 5 and 7 ? (colored in red). Draw the problem (example shown in Fig 5).

Figure 5. Proportion of the population is between 5 and 7.

R code for Fig 5.

# Used myData from Fig 1 code.

highlight_start <- 5
highlight_end <- 7
bar_colors <- rep("white", length(h$counts)) 
bar_colors[h$breaks[-length(h$breaks)] >= highlight_start & h$breaks[-1] <= highlight_end] <- "red"
# Additional code used, same as Figure 1.

Worked problem

1 – (proportion beyond 7) – (proportion less than 5)

1 – (0.1587) – (proportion less than 5)

And the proportion less than 5?

Use Z-score equation again. Now we find that

Z = 0

And look up Z of 0 from the table  = 0.5 proportion or 50.0%

Therefore, the proportion between 5 & 7 equals

1 -0.1587 – 0.50 = 0.3413

Answer = 34.13 % of the observations are between 5 and 7 when the mean µ = 5 and s = 2.

Questions

Several questions were asked in the text.

1. Proportion of observations greater than 7  from a large population with mean µ = 5 and σ = 2.

2. How many multiples of standard deviations would you have for a Z score of Z = 1.75?

3.

Quiz Chapter 6.7

Normal distribution questions

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 probabilities
• Combinations and permutations
• Types of probability
• Discrete probability distributions
• Continuous distributions
• Normal distribution and the normal deviate (Z)
• Moments
• Chi-square (Χ²) distribution
• t distribution
• F distribution
• References and suggested readings

6.6 – Continuous distributions

Large numbers and the Central Limit Theorem

Imagine we’ve collected (sampled) data from a population and now want to summarize the data sample. How do we proceed? A good starting point is to plot the data in a histogram and note the shape of the sample distribution. Not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, but much of the classical inferential statistics demands that we are able to assume that the sampled values come from a certain kind of distribution called the normal, or Gaussian distribution.

Consider a random sample drawn from a normally distributed population of the following series of graphs, Figures 1 – 4:

Figure 1. Sample size = 20, drawn from population with known μ = 0 and σ = 1.

Figure 2. Sample size = 100, also drawn from population with known μ = 0 and σ = 1.

Figure 3. Sample size n = 1000, once again drawn from population with known μ = 0 and σ = 1.

Figure 4. And lastly, sample size n = 1 million also drawn from population with known μ = 0 and σ = 1.

These graphs illustrate a fundamental point in statistics: for many kinds of measurements in biology, the more data you sample, the more likely the data will approach a normal distribution. This series of simulations was a quick and dirty “proof” of the Central Limit Theorem, which is one of the two fundamental theorems of probability, the other being that of Law of Large Numbers (ie, large-sample statistics). Basically the CLT says that for a large number of random samples, the sample mean will approach the population mean,  μ, and the sample variance will approach the population variance σ²; the distribution of the large sample will converge on the normal distribution.

As the sample size gets bigger and bigger, the resulting sample means and standard deviations get closer and closer to the true value (remember — I TOLD the program to grab numbers from the Z distribution with a mean of zero and standard deviation = 1), obeying the Law of Large Numbers.

Simulation

I used the computer to generate sample data from a population. This process is called a simulation. R can make new data sets by sampling from known populations with specified distribution properties that we determine in advance — a very powerful tool — a technique used for many kinds of statistics (eg, Monte Carlo methods, bootstrapping, etc., see Chapter 19).

1. The first graph is for a sample of 20 points;
2. the second for 100;
3. the third for 1,000;
4. and lastly, 1 million points.

To generate a sample from a normal population, the Rcmdr call the menu by selecting:

Rcmdr: Distributions → Continuous distributions → Normal distribution → Sample from normal distribution…

Figure 5. Screenshot Rcmdr menu, sample from a normal distribution.

The menu pops up. I entered Mean (μ) = 0 and Standard deviation (σ) = 1 number of samples = 10, unchecked all boxes under the “add to data set.” I left the object name as “NormalSamples,” you can, of course, change it as needed. R code derived from these requests were

normalityTest(~obs, test="shapiro.test", data=NormalSamples)
NormalSamples <- as.data.frame(matrix(rnorm(10*1, mean=0, sd=1), ncol=1))
rownames(NormalSamples) <- paste("sample", 1:10, sep="")
colnames(NormalSamples) <- "obs"

This results in a new data.frame called NormalSamples with a single variable called obs.

for (i in 1:3){
print(rnorm(5))
}
[1] -0.4221672 -1.4317800 -1.8310352 0.4181184 -1.1596058
[1] -0.2034944 1.1809083 1.5925296 -2.0763677 1.6982357
[1] -1.0967218 -0.3205041 -1.7513838 -0.3335311 -1.8808454

for (i in 1:3){
set.seed(1) 
print(rnorm(5))
}
[1] -0.6264538 0.1836433 -0.8356286 1.5952808 0.3295078
[1] -0.6264538 0.1836433 -0.8356286 1.5952808 0.3295078
[1] -0.6264538 0.1836433 -0.8356286 1.5952808 0.3295078

After creating a sample of numbers drawn from the normal distribution, make a histogram, Rcmdr: Graphs → Histogram… (see Chapter 4.2).

The normal distribution

More on the importance of normal curves in a moment. Sometimes people call these “bell-shaped” curves. You may also see such distributions referred to as Gaussian Distributions, but the normal curve is but one of many Gaussian -type distributions. Moreover, not all “bell-shaped” curves are NORMAL. For a distribution to be “normally distributed” it must follow a specific formula.

This formula has a lot of parts, but once we break down the parts, we’ll see that there is just two things to know. First, let’s identify the parts of the equation:

 is the height of the curve (normal density)
(pie) is a constant = 3.14159… (R, use pi)
µ is the population mean
σ² is the population variance
σ is the square-root of the variance or the population standard deviation
e is the natural logarithm (R, use exp())
 is the individual’s value

Why the Normal distribution is so important in classical statistics

With these distinctions out of the way, the first important message about the normal curve is that it permits us to say how likely (ie, how probable) is a particular value if the observation comes from a population with mean µ and standard deviation σ and the population from which the sample was drawn came from a normal distribution.

The second message: all we need to know to recreate the normal distribution for a set of data is the mean and the variance (or the standard deviation) for the population!! With just these two parameters, we can then determine the expected proportion of observations expected for each value of X. Note — we generally do not know these two because they are population parameters: we must estimate them from samples, using our sample statistics, and that’s where the first big assumption in conducting statistical analyses comes into play!!

An example for calculating the normal distribution when knowing the mean and variance

µ = 5, σ² = 10 (thus, the standard deviation, σ = 3.16)

The formula becomes

Now, plug in different values of X (for example, what’s the probability that a value of X could be 0, 1, 2, …, 10? If we really do have a normal curve with mean = 5, and variance = 10).

The normal equation returns the proportion of observations in a normal population for each X value:

When i = 5 Y₅ = 0.12616 This is the proportion of all data points that have an X = 5 When i = 1 Y₁ = 0.019995 This is the proportion of all data points that have an X = 1

We can keep going, getting the proportion expected for each value of X, then make the plot (Fig 6).

Figure 6. Frequency expected for a few points (X: 0 – 10) drawn from a normal distribution, calculated using the formula and example values. 

Here’s the R code for the plot

X = seq(0,10, by=1)
Y = (0.398947/3.16)*exp((-1*(X-5)^2)/20)
plot(Y~X, ylab="Frequency (Y)", cex=1.5, pch=19,col="blue")
lines(X,Y, col="blue", lwd=2)

Next up, more about the normal distribution, Chapter 6.7.

Questions

1. For a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1, apply the equation for the normal curve for X = (-4, -3.5, -3, -2.5, -2, -1.5, -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4). Plot your results.
2. Sample from a normal distribution with different sample size, means, and standard deviations, each time make a histogram and compare the shape of the histograms.
3. For  a subset of

Quiz Chapter 6.6

Continuous distributions

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
• Moments
• Chi-square distribution
• t distribution
• F distribution
• References and suggested readings