1 / 73

Exam

Exam. Exam starts two weeks from today. Amusing Statistics. Use what you know about normal distributions to evaluate this finding:.

Download Presentation

Exam

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Exam • Exam starts two weeks from today

  2. Amusing Statistics • Use what you know about normal distributions to evaluate this finding: The study, published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, found that among the 4,508 students in Grades 5-8ハwho participated, 36 per cent reported excellent school performance, 38 per cent reported good performance, 20 per cent said they were average performers, and 7 per cent said they performed below average.

  3. Review • The Z-test is used to compare the mean of a sample to the mean of a population and

  4. Review • The Z-score is normally distributed

  5. Review • The Z-score is normally distributed • Thus the probability of obtaining any given Z-score by random sampling is given by the Z table

  6. Review • We can likewise determine critical values for Z such that we would reject the null hypothesis if our computed Z-score exceeds these values • For alpha = .05: • Zcrit (one-tailed) = 1.64 • Zcrit (two-tailed) = 1.96

  7. Confidence Intervals • A related question you might ask: • Suppose you’ve measured a mean and computed a standard error of that mean • What is the range of values such that there is a 95% chance of the population mean falling within that range?

  8. Confidence Intervals • There is a 2.5% chance that the population mean is actually 1.96 standard errors more than the observed mean True mean? 2.5% 95% 1.96

  9. Confidence Intervals • There is a 2.5% chance that the population mean is actually 1.96 standard errors less than the observed mean True mean? 2.5% 95% -1.96

  10. Confidence Intervals • Thus there is a 95% chance that the true population mean falls within + or - 1.96 standard errors from a sample mean

  11. Confidence Intervals • Thus there is a 95% chance that the true population mean falls within + or - 1.96 standard errors from a sample mean • Likewise, there is a 95% chance that the true population mean falls within + or - 1.96 standard deviations from a single measurement

  12. Confidence Intervals • This is called the 95% confidence interval…and it is very useful • It works like significance bounds…if the 95% C.I. doesn’t include the mean of a population you’re comparing your sample to, then your sample is significantly different from that population

  13. Confidence Intervals • Consider an example: • You measure the concentration of mercury in your backyard to be .009 mg/kg • The concentration of mercury in the Earth’s crust is .007 mg/kg. Let’s pretend that, when measured at many sites around the globe, the standard deviation is known to be .002 mg/kg

  14. Confidence Intervals • The 95% confidence interval for this mercury measurement is

  15. Confidence Intervals • This interval includes .007 mg/kg which, it turns out, is the mean concentration found in the earth’s crust in general • Thus you would conclude that your backyard isn’t artificially contaminated by mercury

  16. Confidence Intervals • Imagine you take 25 samples from around Alberta and you found:

  17. Confidence Intervals • Imagine you take 25 samples from around Alberta and you found: • .009 +/- (1.96 x .0004) = .008216 to .009784 • This interval doesn’t include the .007 mg/kg value for the earth’s crust so you would conclude that Alberta has an artificially elevated amount of mercury in the soil

  18. Power • we perform a Z-test and determine that the difference between the mean of our sample and the mean of the population is not due to chance with a p < .05

  19. Power • we perform a Z-test and determine that the difference between the mean of our sample and the mean of the population is not due to chance with a p < .05 • we say that we have a significant result…

  20. Power • we perform a Z-test and determine that the difference between the mean of our sample and the mean of the population is not due to chance with a p < .05 • we say that we have a significant result… • but what if p is > .05?

  21. Power • What are the two reasons why p comes out greater than .05?

  22. Power • What are the two reasons why p comes out greater than .05? • Your experiment lacked Statistical Power and you made a Type II Error • The null hypothesis really is true

  23. Power • Two approaches: • The Hopelessly Jaded Grad Student Solution • The Wise and Well Adjusted Professor Procedure

  24. Power 1. Hopelessly Jaded Grad Student Solution - conclude that your hypothesis was wrong and go directly to the grad student pub

  25. Power - This is not the recommended course of action

  26. Power 2. The Wise Professor Procedure - consider the several reasons why you might not have detected a significant effect

  27. Power - recommended by wise professors the world over

  28. Power • Why might p be greater than .05 ? • Recall that: and

  29. Power • Why might p be greater than .05 ? 1. Small effect size: • The effect doesn’t stand out from the variability in the data • You might be able to increase your effect size (e.g. with a larger dose or treatment) is quite close to the mean of the population

  30. Power • Why might p be greater than .05 ? 2. Noisy Data • A large denominator will swamp the small effect • Take greater care to reduce measurement errors and therefore is quite large

  31. Power • Why might p be greater than .05 ? 3. Sample Size is Too Small • A large denominator will swamp the small effect • Run more subjects is quite large because is small

  32. Power • The solution in each case is more power:

  33. Power • The solution in each case is more power: • Power is like sensitivity - the ability to detect small effects in noisy data

  34. Power • The solution in each case is more power: • Power is like sensitivity - the ability to detect small effects in noisy data • It is the opposite of Type II Error rate

  35. Power • The solution in each case is more power: • Power is like sensitivity - the ability to detect small effects in noisy data • It is the opposite of Type II Error rate • So that you know: there are equations for computing statistical power

  36. Power • An important point about power and the null hypothesis: • Failing to reject the null hypothesis DOES NOT PROVE it to be true!!!

  37. Power • Consider an example: • How to prove that smoking does not cause cancer: • enroll 2 people who smoke infrequently and use an antique X-Ray camera to look for cancer • Compare the mean cancer rate in your group (which will probably be zero) to the cancer rate in the population (which won’t be) with a Z-test

  38. Power • Consider an example: • If p came out greater than .05, you still wouldn’t believe that smoking doesn’t cause cancer

  39. Power • Consider an example: • If p came out greater than .05, you still wouldn’t believe that smoking doesn’t cause cancer • You will, however, often encounter statements such as “The study failed to find…” misinterpreted as “The study proved no effect of…”

  40. Experimental Design • We’ve been using examples in which a single sample is compared to a population

  41. Experimental Design • We’ve been using examples in which a single sample is compared to a population • Often we employ more sophisticated designs

  42. Experimental Design • We’ve been using examples in which a single sample is compared to a population • Often we employ more sophisticated designs • What are some different ways you could run an experiment?

  43. Experimental Design • Compare one mean to some value • Often that value is zero

  44. Experimental Design • Compare one mean to some value • Often that value is zero • Compare two means to each other

  45. Experimental Design • There are two general categories of comparing two (or more) means with each other

  46. Experimental Design • Repeated Measures - also called “within-subjects” comparison • The same subjects are given pre- and post- measurements • e.g. before and after taking a drug to lower blood pressure • Powerful because variability between subjects is factored out • Note that pre- and post- scores are linked - we say that they are dependant • Note also that you could have multiple tests

  47. Experimental Design • Problems with Repeated-Measure design: • Practice/Temporal effect - subjects get better/worse over time • The act of measuring might preclude further measurement - e.g. measuring brain size via surgery • Practice effect - subjects improve with repeated exposure to a procedure

  48. Experimental Design 2. Between-Subjects Design • Subjects are randomly assigned to treatment groups - e.g. drug and placebo • Measurements are assumed to be statistically independent

  49. Experimental Design 2. Problems with Between-Subjects design • Can be less powerful because variability between two groups of different subjects can look like a treatment effect • Often needs more subjects

  50. Experimental Design • We’ll need some statistical tests that can compare: • One sample mean to a fixed value • Two dependent sample means to each other (within-subject) • Two independent sample means to each other (between-subject)

More Related