Statistical Consultation Line: (865) 742-7731
Accredited Professional Statistician For Hire
  • Contact Form

Basic principles of correlational research

4/11/2015

1 Comment

 

Spearman's rho vs. Pearson's r

Bivariate associations between variables

Surveys and the outcomes they generate are oftentimes not able to meet the assumption of normality, as per skewness and kurtosis statistics.  Also, some types of variables are just naturally skewed (i.e. income, length of stay at a hospital), and thus require the use of non-parametric statistics.

Spearman's rho correlation is considered non-parametric because it is the correlational test used when finding the association between two variables measured at an ordinal level.  Ordinal level measurement does not possess a "true zero" and therefore cannot possess the precision and accuracy of continuous variables.

Pearson's r is used when correlating two continuous variables.  However, one MUST check for the assumption of normality and identify and make decisions about any outliers (observations more than 3.29 standard deviations away from the mean).  This is of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE because correlations are highly influenced by outlying observations.  Just ONE outlier can artifically skew a correlation positively or negatively, and in a statistically significant fashion!

Going back to the introduction, remember to use Spearman's rho on interval and ordinal variables as well as with variables that are naturally skewed.  Statistics, in and of itself as a science, is very flawed.  Not everything you come across in existence will fit the normal curve.  Luckily, we have non-parametric statistics that are robust to these common violations of inferential statistical tests.

Scale, LLC
1 Comment

Statistical assumptions for inferential statistics

1/5/2015

0 Comments

 

Statistical assumptions

Necessary parts of conducting statistics

As I have been adding statistical assumptions to the website, it is safe to say that the "levee" has broke and I have A LOT more work to do to make this the best statistical and empirical website.  With this being said, check out the new assumptions pages:

Skewness and Kurtosis
Levene's Test of Equality of Variances
Logarithmic Transformations
Mauchly's Test of Sphericity

Scale, LLC
0 Comments

The assumption of independence of observations

12/3/2014

1 Comment

 

Independence of observations

Each participant in a sample can only be counted as one observation

As a biostatistician, I spend a lot of time testing for normality and homogeneity of variance.

Skewness and kurtosis statistics are used to assess the normality of a continuous variable's distribution.  A skewness or kurtosis statistic above an absolute value of 2.0 is considered to be non-normal.  Distributions are often non-normal due to outliers in the distribution.  Any observation that falls more than 3.29 standard deviations away from the mean is considered an outlier.

Levene's Test of Equality of Variances is used to measure for meeting the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Any Levene's Test with a p-value below .05 means that the assumption has been violated.  In the event that the assumption is violated, non-parametric tests can be employed.

There is one more important statistical assumption that exists coincident with the aforementioned two, the assumption of independence of observations.  Simply stated, this assumption stipulates that study participants are independent of each other in the analysis. They are only counted once.

In between-subjects designs, each study participant is a mutually exclusive observation that is completely independent from all other participants in all other groups.

For within-subjects designs, each participant is independent of other participants.  There are just multiple observations of the outcome, per participant.

With this being said, it is prevalent for researchers to take multiple measurements of an outcome and compare these multiple measurements in an independent fashion (oftentimes with differing numbers of observations across participants) or within-subjects (ALWAYS with differing numbers of observations of the outcome).  By default, these are not independent measures and violate the assumption of independence of observations.  What is one to do?

The answer is generalized estimating equations (GEE).  This family of statistical tests are robust to multiple observations (or correlated observations) of an outcome and can be used for between-subjects, within-subjects, factorial, and multivariate analyses.

Scale, LLC
1 Comment

Ordinal measures becoming continuous with normality

10/2/2014

1 Comment

 

Ordinal measures and normality

Ordinal level measurement can become interval level with assumed normality

Here is an interesting trick I picked up along the way when it comes to ordinal outcomes and some unvalidated measures. If you run skewness and kurtosis statistics on the ordinal variable and its distribution meets the assumption of normality (skewness and kurtosis statistics are less than an absolute value of 2.0), then you can "upgrade" the variable to a continuous level of measurement and analyze it using more powerful parametric statistics.  

This type of thinking is the reason that the SAT, ACT, GRE, MCAT, LSAT, and validated psychological instruments are perceived at a continuous level. The scores yielded from these instruments, by definition, are not continuous because a "true zero" does not exist. Scores from these tests are often norm- or criterion-referenced to the population so that they can be interpreted in the correct context. Therefore, with the subjectivity and measurement error associated with classical test theory and item response theory, the scores are actually ordinal.

With that being said, if the survey instrument or ordinal outcome is used in the empirical literature often and it meets the assumption of normality as per skewness and kurtosis statistics, treat the ordinal variable as a continuous variable and run analyses using parametric statistics (t-tests, ANOVA, regression) versus non-parametric statistics (Chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, McNemar's, Wicoxon, Friedman's ANOVA, logistic regression). 

Scale, LLC
1 Comment

Using naturally skewed continuous variables as outcome variables

9/23/2014

0 Comments

 

Transformed outcomes

Some continuous variables will be naturally skewed

In medicine, there is an important metric that signifies efficiency and quality in healthcare, length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. When thinking about the distribution of a variable such as LOS, you have to put it into a relative context. The vast majority of people will have an LOS of between 0-3 days given the type of treatment or injury that brought them to hospital. VERY FEW individuals will stay at the hospital one month, six months, or a year. Therefore, the distribution looks nothing like the normal curve and is extremely positively skewed.  

As a researcher, you may want to predict for a continuous variable that has a natural and logical skewness to its distribution in the population. Yet, the assumption of normality is a central tenet of running statistical analyses. What is one to do in this situation?

The answer is to first, run skewnessand kurtosis statistics to assess the normality of your continuous outcome.  If the either statistic is above an absolute value of 2.0, then the distribution is non-normal. Check for outliers in the distribution that are more than 3.29 standard deviations away from the mean. Make sure that the outlying observations were entered correctly.

You now have a choice:

1. You can delete the outlying observations in a listwise fashion. This should be done only if the number of outlying variables is less than 10% of the overall distribution. This is the least preferable choice.

2. You can conduct a logarithmic transformation on the outcome variable. Doing this will normalize the distribution so that you can run the analysis using parametric statistics. The unstandardized beta coefficients, standard errors, and standardized beta coefficients are not interpretable, but the significance of the associations between the predictor variables and the transformed outcome can yield some inferential evidence.

3. You can recode the continuous outcome variable into a lower level scale of measurement such as ordinal or categorical and run non-parametric statistics to seek out any associations. Of course, you are losing the precision and accuracy of continuous-level measurement and introducing measurement error into the outcome variable, but you will still be able to run inferential statistics.

4. You can use non-parametric statistics without changing the skewed variable at all. That is one of the primary benefits of non-parametric statistics: They are robust to violations of normality and homogeneity of variance. Instead of interpreting means and standard deviations, you will interpret medians and interquartile ranges with non-parametric statistics. 

Click on the Statistics button to learn more.
Statistics

Scale, LLC

0 Comments

Meeting statistical assumptions

9/15/2014

0 Comments

 

Meeting statistical assumptions is IMPORTANT

Statistics is a flawed mathematical science and assumptions MUST be met

I've read in the literature that somewhere between 30-90% of all statistics reported in the medical literature are incorrectly conducted. First of all, that's a WIDE range and either extreme should be pretty frightening to consumers of healthcare and other related services. If your practitioner is using evidence-based practices, then one would hope that your treatment regimen does NOT fall within that range!

Many times, statistics are incorrect because researchers do not check for the statistical assumptions associated with using their statistical tests. There are three fundamental statistical assumptions that all researchers should check before running any type of statistic:

1. Normality - If you are using ANY continuous variables, then use skewness and kurtosis statistics to assess their normality. Any variables that have a skewness or kurtosis statistics above an absolute value of 2.0 are assumed to be non-normal.

2. Homogeneity of variance - If you are using between-subjects analyses to compare independent groups on a continuous outcome, then use Levene's test to check for meeting the assumption of homogeneity of variance between your independent groups. This assumption assesses if the independent groups have similar variances associated with the outcome. If the p-value for Levene's test is LESS THAN .05, then the assumption has been violated.  

3. "Missingness" - Missing data is a constant battle when conducting research. There are a litany of different reasons that lead to missing data but regardless, missing data can skew the results of a study by under-representation of the population of interest. If ANY of your variables have MORE THAN 20% of their observations missing, then that variable should be discarded.  

Scale, LLC
0 Comments

    Archives

    March 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014

    Author

    Eric Heidel, Ph.D. is Owner and Operator of Scalë, LLC.

    Categories

    All
    95% Confidence Interval
    Absolute Risk Reduction
    Accuracy
    Acquiring Clinical Evidence
    Adjusted Odds Ratio
    Affordable Care Act
    Alpha Value
    ANCOVA Test
    ANOVA Test
    Applying Clinical Evidence
    Appraisal Of The Literature
    Appraising Clinical Evidence
    A Priori
    Area Under The Curve
    Asking Clinical Questions
    Assessing Clinical Practice
    AUC
    Basic Science
    Beta Value
    Between-subjects
    Biserial
    Blinding
    Bloom's Taxonomy
    Bonferroni
    Boolean Operators
    Calculator
    Case-control Design
    Case Series
    Categorical
    Causal Effects
    Chi-square
    Chi-square Assumption
    Chi-square Goodness-of-fit
    Classical Test Theory
    Clinical Pathways
    Clustered Random Sampling
    Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel
    Cochran's Q Test
    Coefficient Of Determination
    Cognitive Dissonance
    Cohort
    Comparative Effectiveness Research
    Comparator
    Concurrent Validity
    Confidence Interval
    Confirmatory Factor Analysis
    Construct Specification
    Construct Validity
    Continuous
    Control Event Rate
    Convenience Sampling Method
    Convergent Validity
    Copyright
    Correlations
    Count Variables
    Cox Regression
    Cronbach's Alpha
    Cross-sectional
    Curriculum Vitae
    Database Management
    Diagnostic Testing
    EBM
    Education
    Effect Size
    Empirical Literature
    Epidemiology
    Equivalency Trial
    Eric Heidel
    Evidence-based Medicine
    Exclusion Criteria
    Experimental Designs
    Experimental Event Rate
    Facebook
    Factorial ANOVA
    Feasible Research Questions
    FINER
    Fisher's Exact Tests
    Friedman's ANOVA
    Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE)
    "gold Standard" Outcome
    G*Power
    Guidelines For Authors
    Hazard Ratio
    Hierarchical Regression
    Homogeneity Of Variance
    Hypothesis Testing
    ICC
    Incidence
    Inclusion Criteria
    Independence Of Observations Assumption
    Independent Samples T-test
    Intention-to-treat
    Internal Consistency Reliability
    Interquartile Range
    Inter-rater Reliability
    Interval Variables
    Intervention
    Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
    Isomorphism
    Item Response Theory
    Kaplan-Meier Curve
    Kappa Statistic
    KR-20
    Kruskal-Wallis
    Kurtosis
    Levene's Test
    Likert Scales
    Linearity
    Listwise Deletion
    Logarithmic Transformations
    Logistic Regression
    Log-Rank Test
    Longitudinal Data
    MANCOVA
    Mann-Whitney U
    MANOVA
    Mass Emails In Survey Research
    Math
    Mauchly's Test
    McNemar's Test
    Mean
    Measurement
    Median
    Medicine
    Merging Databases
    Missing Data
    Mode
    Multinomial Logistic Regression
    Multiple Regression
    Multivariate Statistics
    Negative Binomial Regression
    Negative Predictive Value
    Nominal Variables
    Nonequivalent Control Group Design
    Non-inferiority
    Non-inferiority Trial
    Non-parametric Statistics
    Non-probability Sampling
    Normality
    Normality Of Difference Scores
    Normal Probability Plot
    Novel Research Question
    Number Needed To Treat
    Observational Research
    Odds Ratio With 95% CI
    One-sample Median Tests
    One-sample T-test
    One-sided Hypothesis
    One-Way Random
    Operationalization
    Ordinal
    Outcome
    Outliers
    Parametric Statistics
    Pearson's R
    Ph.D.
    Phi Coefficient
    PICO
    Pilot Study
    Point Biserial
    Poisson Regression
    Population
    Positive Predictive Value
    Post Hoc
    Post-positivism
    PPACA
    PPV
    Precision
    Predictive Validity
    Prevalence
    Principal Components Analysis
    Probability Sampling
    Propensity Score Matching
    Proportion
    Proportional Odds Regression
    Prospective Cohort
    Psychometrics
    Psychometric Tests
    Publication
    Publication Bias
    Purposive Sampling
    P-value
    Random Assignment
    Randomized Controlled Trial
    Random Selection
    Rank Biserial
    Ratio Variables
    Receiver Operator Characteristic
    Regression
    Regression Analysis
    Relative Risk
    Relevant Research Question
    Reliability
    Repeated-measures ANOVA
    Repeated-measures T-test
    Research
    Research Design
    Research Engineer
    Research Journal
    Research Question
    Residual Analysis
    Retrospective Cohort
    ROC Curve
    Sample Size
    Sampling
    Sampling Error
    Sampling Method
    Scales Of Measurement
    Science
    Search Engine
    Search Query
    Sensitivity
    Simple Random Sampling
    Sitemap
    Skewness
    Social Science
    Spearman-Brown
    Spearman's Rho
    Specificity
    Specificity In Literature Searching
    Sphericity Assumption
    Split-half Reliability
    SPSS
    Standard Deviation
    Standards Of Care
    Statistical Analysis
    Statistical Assumptions
    Statistical Consultation
    Statistical Power
    Statistical Power Analysis
    Statistical-power-test
    Statistician
    Statistics
    Stratified Random Sampling
    Survey
    Survey Construct Specification
    Survey Methods
    Systematic Review
    Test-Retest Reliability
    Twitter
    Two-sided Hypothesis
    Two-Way Mixed
    Two-Way Random
    Type I Error
    Type II Error
    Unadjusted Odds Ratio
    Validity
    Variables
    Variance
    Wilcoxon
    Within-subjects
    YouTube


    Contact Form

Contact Dr. Eric Heidel
[email protected]
(865) 742-7731

Copyright © 2024 Scalë. All Rights Reserved. Patent Pending.