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

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

Logarithmic transformations for skewed variables

11/23/2014

0 Comments

 

Logarithmic transformations adjust skewed distributions

Analyze skewed data using more powerful parametric statistics

Logarithmic transformations are powerful statistical tools when employed and interpreted in the correct fashion. Transforming the distribution of a continuous variable due to violating normality allows researchers to account for outlying observations and use more powerful parametric statistics to assess any significant associations. 

Also, some continuous variables are naturally skewed.  One particular outcome that is prevalent in medicine is LOS or length of stay in the hospital.  Most patients will be in the hospital between one and three days, VERY FEW will be in the hospital for weeks and months at a time.  In order to include these outlying patients in analyses, transformations must be performed.  Naturally skewed variables can be analyzed with parametric statistics with transformations! 

An important thing to remember when conducting logarithmic transformations is that only the p-value associated with inferential statistics can be interpreted, NOT the means and standard deviations of the transformed observations. Instead, researchers should report the median and interquartile range for the distribution.

Scale, LLC
0 Comments

Small sample sizes, Type II errors, and empirical reasoning

11/18/2014

0 Comments

 

Small sample sizes can lead to Type II errors

Significant effects may not be able to be detected

In instances where a phenomenon or outcome is less prevalent in the population, scientists are forced to work small sample sizes. It is just the nature of the science, and the phenomenon or outcome.

1. When working with smaller sample sizes, adequate statistical power (and therefore statistical significance) is VERY hard to achieve.

2. There is limited precision and accuracy when using categorical or ordinal outcomes, which can further decreases statistical power.

3. When measuring for small effect sizes, small sample sizes cannot provide enough variance in the outcome to detect clinically meaningful, but small effects. This REALLY decreases your statistical power since inferential statistics depend upon variance in the mathematical sense.

With this being said, remember to interpret the p-values yielded from RCT level studies with small sample sizes in the context of the aforementioned points. If a treatment effect does not obtain statistical significance, but appears to be CLINICALLY SIGNIFICANT with a p-value approaching significance (Type II error), then perhaps more credence can be found in the effect.

If researchers run bivariate tests on 30 different outcomes with less than 20 observations and claim significance without a Bonferroni adjustment, throw the article out.

Scale, LLC
0 Comments

95% confidence intervals

10/5/2014

1 Comment

 

Precision and consistency of treatment effects

95% confidence intervals are dependent upon sample size

If there is ANY statistical calculation that holds true value for researchers and clinicians on a day-to-day basis, it is the 95% confidence interval wrapped around the findings of inferential analyses. Statistics is not an exact mathematical science as far as other exact mathematical sciences go, measurement error is inherent when attempting to measure for anything related to human beings, and FEW tried and true causal effects have been proven scientifically. Statistics' strength as a mathematical science is in its ability to build confidence intervals around findings to put them into a relative context.  

Also, 95% confidence intervals act as the primary inference associated with unadjusted odds ratios, relative risk, hazard ratios, and adjusted odds ratios. If the confidence interval crosses over 1.0, there is a non-significant effect. Wide 95% confidence intervals are indicative of small sample sizes and lead to decreased precision of the effect. Constricted or narrow 95% confidence intervals reflect increased precision and consistency of a treatment effect.

In essence, p-values should not be what people get excited about when it comes to statistical analyses. The interpretation of your findings within the context of the subsequent population means, odds, risk, hazard, and 95% confidence intervals IS the real "meat" of applied statistics.

Scale, LLC
1 Comment

Chi-square p-values are not enough

10/3/2014

1 Comment

 

Chi-square p-value

Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval should be reported and interpreted

Most people that need statistics are focused only on the almighty p-value of less than .05. When running Chi-square analyses between a dichotomous categorical predictor and a dichotomous categorical outcome, p-values are not the primary inference that should be interpreted for practical purposes. The lack of precision and accuracy in categorical measures coupled with sampling error makes the p-values yielded from Chi-square analyses virtually worthless in the applied sense.

The correct statistic to run is an unadjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. This is the best measure for interpreting the magnitude of the association between two dichotomous categorical variables collected in a retrospective fashion. Relative risk can be calculated when the association is assessed in a prospective fashion.

The width of the 95% confidence interval and it crossing over 1.0 dictate the significance and precision of the association between the variables.  With smaller sample sizes, the 95% confidence interval will be wider and less precise. Larger sample sizes will yield more precise effects.

Scale, LLC
1 Comment

    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.