1 / 40

Comparison of 2 Population Means

Comparison of 2 Population Means. Goal: To compare 2 populations/treatments wrt a numeric outcome Sampling Design: Independent Samples (Parallel Groups) vs Paired Samples (Crossover Design) Data Structure: Normal vs Non-normal Sample Sizes: Large ( n 1 , n 2 >20) vs Small. Independent Samples.

rollandr
Download Presentation

Comparison of 2 Population Means

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. Comparison of 2 Population Means • Goal: To compare 2 populations/treatments wrt a numeric outcome • Sampling Design: Independent Samples (Parallel Groups) vs Paired Samples (Crossover Design) • Data Structure: Normal vs Non-normal • Sample Sizes: Large (n1,n2>20) vs Small

  2. Independent Samples • Units in the two samples are different • Sample sizes may or may not be equal • Large-sample inference based on Normal Distribution (Central Limit Theorem) • Small-sample inference depends on distribution of individual outcomes (Normal vs non-Normal)

  3. Parameters/Estimates (Independent Samples) • Parameter: • Estimator: • Estimated standard error: • Shape of sampling distribution: • Normal if data are normal • Approximately normal if n1,n2>20 • Non-normal otherwise (typically)

  4. Large-Sample Test of m1-m2 • Null hypothesis: The population means differ by D0 (which is typically 0): • Alternative Hypotheses: • 1-Sided: • 2-Sided: • Test Statistic:

  5. Large-Sample Test of m1-m2 • Decision Rule: • 1-sided alternative • If zobsza ==> Conclude m1-m2 > D0 • If zobs < za ==> Do not reject m1-m2 = D0 • 2-sided alternative • If zobsza/2 ==> Conclude m1-m2 > D0 • If zobs -za/2 ==> Conclude m1-m2 < D0 • If -za/2 < zobs < za/2 ==> Do not reject m1-m2 = D0

  6. Large-Sample Test of m1-m2 • Observed Significance Level (P-Value) • 1-sided alternative • P=P(z zobs) (From the std. Normal distribution) • 2-sided alternative • P=2P(z |zobs| )(From the std. Normal distribution) • If P-Value  a, then reject the null hypothesis

  7. Large-Sample (1-a)100% Confidence Interval for m1-m2 • Confidence Coefficient (1-a) refers to the proportion of times this rule would provide an interval that contains the true parameter value m1-m2 if it were applied over all possible samples • Rule:

  8. Large-Sample (1-a)100% Confidence Interval for m1-m2 • For 95% Confidence Intervals, z.025=1.96 • Confidence Intervals and 2-sided tests give identical conclusions at same a-level: • If entire interval is above D0, conclude m1-m2 > D0 • If entire interval is below D0, conclude m1-m2 < D0 • If interval contains D0, do not reject m1-m2 = D0

  9. Example: Vitamin C for Common Cold • Outcome: Number of Colds During Study Period for Each Student • Group 1: Given Placebo • Group 2: Given Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) Source: Pauling (1971)

  10. 2-Sided Test to Compare Groups • H0: m1-m2= 0 (No difference in trt effects) • HA: m1-m2≠ 0 (Difference in trt effects) • Test Statistic: • Decision Rule (a=0.05) • Conclude m1-m2> 0 since zobs = 25.3 > z.025= 1.96

  11. 95% Confidence Interval for m1-m2 • Point Estimate: • Estimated Std. Error: • Critical Value: z.025 = 1.96 • 95% CI: 0.30 ± 1.96(0.0119)  0.30 ± 0.023  (0.277 , 0.323) Entire interval > 0

  12. Small-Sample Test for m1-m2Normal Populations (P. 538) • Case 1: Common Variances (s12 = s22 = s2) • Null Hypothesis: • Alternative Hypotheses: • 1-Sided: • 2-Sided: • Test Statistic:(where Sp2 is a “pooled” estimate of s2)

  13. Small-Sample Test for m1-m2Normal Populations • Decision Rule: (Based on t-distribution with n=n1+n2-2 df) • 1-sided alternative • If tobsta,n ==> Conclude m1-m2 > D0 • If tobs < ta,n ==> Do not reject m1-m2 = D0 • 2-sided alternative • If tobsta/2 ,n ==> Conclude m1-m2 > D0 • If tobs -ta/2,n ==> Conclude m1-m2 < D0 • If -ta/2,n < tobs < ta/2,n ==> Do not reject m1-m2 = D0

  14. Small-Sample Test for m1-m2Normal Populations • Observed Significance Level (P-Value) • Special Tables Needed, Printed by Statistical Software Packages • 1-sided alternative • P=P(t tobs) (From the tn distribution) • 2-sided alternative • P=2P(t  |tobs| )(From the tn distribution) • If P-Value  a, then reject the null hypothesis

  15. Small-Sample (1-a)100% Confidence Interval for m1-m2 - Normal Populations • Confidence Coefficient (1-a) refers to the proportion of times this rule would provide an interval that contains the true parameter value m1-m2 if it were applied over all possible samples • Rule: • Interpretations same as for large-sample CI’s

  16. Small-Sample Inference for m1-m2Normal Populations (P.529) • Case 2: s12 s22 • Don’t pool variances: • Use “adjusted” degrees of freedom (Satterthwaites’ Approximation) :

  17. Example - Maze Learning (Adults/Children) • Groups: Adults (n1=14) / Children (n2=10) • Outcome: Average # of Errors in Maze Learning Task • Raw Data on next slide • Conduct a 2-sided test of whether mean scores differ • Construct a 95% Confidence Interval for true difference Source: Gould and Perrin (1916)

  18. Example - Maze Learning (Adults/Children)

  19. Example - Maze LearningCase 1 - Equal Variances H0: m1-m2 = 0 HA: m1-m2 0 (a = 0.05) No significant difference between 2 age groups

  20. Example - Maze LearningCase 2 - Unequal Variances H0: m1-m2 = 0 HA: m1-m2 0 (a = 0.05) No significant difference between 2 age groups

  21. SPSS Output

  22. Small Sample Test to Compare Two Medians - Nonnormal Populations • Two Independent Samples (Parallel Groups) • Procedure (Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test): • Rank measurements across samples from smallest (1) to largest (n1+n2). Ties take average ranks. • Obtain the rank sum for each group (W1 ,W2 ) • 1-sided tests:Conclude HA: M1 > M2 if W2 W0 • 2-sided tests:Conclude HA: M1M2 if min(W1, W2)  W0 • Values of W0 are given in many texts for various sample sizes and significance levels. P-values are printed by statistical software packages.

  23. Normal Approximation (Supp PP5-7) • Under the null hypothesis of no difference in the two groups (let W=W1 from last slide): • A z-statistic can be computed and P-value (approximate) can be obtained from Z-distribution

  24. Example - Maze Learning

  25. Example - Maze Learning As with the t-test, no evidence of population group differences

  26. Computer Output - SPSS

  27. Inference Based on Paired Samples (Crossover Designs) • Setting: Each treatment is applied to each subject or pair (preferably in random order) • Data: di is the difference in scores (Trt1-Trt2) for subject (pair) i • Parameter: mD - Population mean difference • Sample Statistics:

  28. Test Concerning mD • Null Hypothesis: H0:mD=D0 (almost always 0) • Alternative Hypotheses: • 1-Sided:HA: mD > D0 • 2-Sided: HA: mDD0 • Test Statistic:

  29. Test Concerning mD • Decision Rule: (Based on t-distribution with n=n-1 df) • 1-sided alternative • If tobsta,n ==> Conclude mD> D0 • If tobs < ta,n ==> Do not reject mD= D0 • 2-sided alternative • If tobsta/2 ,n ==> Conclude mD> D0 • If tobs -ta/2,n ==> Conclude mD< D0 • If -ta/2,n < tobs < ta/2,n ==> Do not reject mD= D0 Confidence Interval for mD

  30. Example Antiperspirant Formulations • Subjects - 20 Volunteers’ armpits • Treatments - Dry Powder vs Powder-in-Oil • Measurements - Average Rating by Judges • Higher scores imply more disagreeable odor • Summary Statistics (Raw Data on next slide): Source: E. Jungermann (1974)

  31. Example Antiperspirant Formulations

  32. Example Antiperspirant Formulations Evidence that scores are higher (more unpleasant) for the dry powder (formulation 1)

  33. Small-Sample Test For Nonnormal Data • Paired Samples (Crossover Design) • Procedure (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test) • Compute Differences di (as in the paired t-test) and obtain their absolute values (ignoring 0s) • Rank the observations by |di| (smallest=1), averaging ranks for ties • Compute W+ and W-, the rank sums for the positive and negative differences, respectively • 1-sided tests:Conclude HA: M1 > M2 if W- T0 • 2-sided tests:Conclude HA: M1M2 if min(W+, W-)  T0 • Values of T0 are given in many texts for various sample sizes and significance levels. P-values printed by statistical software packages.

  34. Normal Approximation (Supp PP18-21) • Under the null hypothesis of no difference in the two groups : • A z-statistic can be computed and P-value (approximate) can be obtained from Z-distribution

  35. Example - Caffeine and Endurance • Subjects: 9 well-trained cyclists • Treatments: 13mg Caffeine (Condition 1) vs 5mg (Condition 2) • Measurements: Minutes Until Exhaustion • This is subset of larger study (we’ll see later) • Step 1: Take absolute values of differences (eliminating 0s) • Step 2: Rank the absolute differences (averaging ranks for ties) • Step 3: Sum Ranks for positive and negative true differences Source: Pasman, et al (1995)

  36. Example - Caffeine and Endurance Original Data

  37. Example - Caffeine and Endurance Absolute Differences Ranked Absolute Differences W+ = 1+2+4+6+7+8=28 W- = 3+5+9=17

  38. Example - Caffeine and Endurance Under the null hypothesis of no difference in the two groups: There is no evidence that endurance times differ for the 2 doses (we will see later that both are higher than no dose)

  39. SPSS Output Note that SPSS is taking MG5-MG13, while we used MG13-MG5

  40. Data Sources • Pauling, L. (1971). “The Significance of the Evidence about Ascorbic Acid and the Common Cold,” Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences of the United States of America, 11: 2678-2681 • Gould, M.C. and F.A.C. Perrin (1916). “A Comparison of the Factors Involved in the Maze Learning of Human Adults and Children,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1:122-??? • Jungermann, E. (1974). “Antiperspirants: New Trends in Formulation and Testing Technology,” Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists 25:621-638 • Pasman, W.J., M.A. van Baak, A.E. Jeukendrup, and A. de Haan (1995). “The Effect of Different Dosages of Caffeine on Endurance Performance Time,” International Journal of Sports Medicine, 16:225-230

More Related