1 / 41

Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance.

Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance. . Multiple Comparisons. Error rate of control Pairwise comparisons Comparisons to a control Linear contrasts. Multiple Comparison Procedures.

niveditha
Télécharger la présentation

Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance.

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. Everyday is a new beginning in life. Every moment is a time for self vigilance.

  2. Multiple Comparisons Error rate of control Pairwise comparisons Comparisons to a control Linear contrasts

  3. Multiple Comparison Procedures Once we reject H0: ==...c in favor of H1: NOT all ’s are equal, we don’t yet know the way in which they’re not all equal, but simply that they’re not all the same. If there are 4 columns, are all 4 ’s different? Are 3 the same and one different? If so, which one? etc.

  4. These “more detailed” inquiries into the process are called MULTIPLE COMPARISON PROCEDURES. Errors (Type I): We set up “” as the significance level for a hypothesis test. Suppose we test 3 independent hypotheses, each at = .05; each test has type I error (rej H0 when it’s true) of .05. However, P(at least one type I error in the 3 tests) = 1-P( accept all ) = 1 - (.95)3 .14 3, given true

  5. In other words, Probability is .14 that at least one type one error is made. For 5 tests, prob = .23. Question - Should we choose = .05, and suffer (for 5 tests) a .23 Experimentwise Error rate (“a” or aE)? OR Should we choose/control the overall error rate, “a”, to be .05, and find the individual test  by 1 - (1-)5 = .05, (which gives us  = .011)?

  6. The formula 1 - (1-)5 = .05 would be valid only if the tests are independent; often they’re not. [ e.g., 1=22=3, 1= 3 IF accepted & rejected, isn’t it more likely that rejected? ] 2 3 1 1 2 3

  7. Error Rates When the tests are not independent, it’s usually very difficult to arrive at the correct for an individual test so that a specified value results for the experimentwise error rate (or called family error rate).

  8. There are many multiple comparison procedures. We’ll cover only a few. Pairwise Comparisons Method 1: (Fisher Test) Do a series of pairwise t-tests, each with specified  value (for individual test). This is called “Fisher’s LEAST SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE” (LSD).

  9. Example: Broker Study A financial firm would like to determine if brokers they use to execute trades differ with respect to their ability to provide a stock purchase for the firm at a low buying price per share. To measure cost, an index, Y, is used. Y=1000(A-P)/A where P=per share price paid for the stock; A=average of high price and low price per share, for the day. “The higher Y is the better the trade is.”

  10. CoL: broker 1 12 3 5 -1 12 5 6 2 7 17 13 11 7 17 12 3 8 1 7 4 3 7 5 4 21 10 15 12 20 6 14 5 24 13 14 18 14 19 17 } R=6 Five brokers were in the study and six trades were randomly assigned to each broker.

  11. “MSW”  = .05, FTV = 2.76 (reject equal column MEANS)

  12. For any comparison of 2 columns, Yi -Yj /2 /2 CL 0 Cu AR: 0+ ta/2 x MSW x 1+ 1 nj ni dfw (ni = nj = 6, here) Pooled Variance, the estimate for the common variance MSW :

  13. In our example, with=.05 0  2.060 (21.2 x 1 + 1 ) 0 5.48 6 6 This value, 5.48 is called the Least Significant Difference (LSD). When same number of data points, R, in each column, LSD = ta/2 x 2xMSW. R

  14. Col: 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Underline Diagram • Summarize the comparison results. (p. 443) • Now, rank order and compare:

  15. 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Step 2: identify difference > 5.48, and mark accordingly: 3: compare the pair of means within each subset: Comparisondifferencevs. LSD < < < < 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 * * * 5 * Contiguous; no need to detail

  16. 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 18 Conclusion : 3, 1 2 4 5 ??? Conclusion : 3, 1 2, 4, 5 Can get “inconsistency”: Suppose col 5 were 18: Now: Comparison |difference| vs. LSD < < > < 3 vs. 1 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 * * * 6

  17. Broker 1 and 3 are not significantly different but they are significantly different to the other 3 brokers. Conclusion : 3, 1 2 4 5 • Broker 2 and 4 are not significantly different, and broker 4 and 5 are not significantly different, but broker 2 is different to (smaller than) broker 5 significantly.

  18. Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>One-Way Anova then click “comparisons”. Fisher's pairwise comparisons (Minitab) Family error rate = 0.268 Individual error rate = 0.0500 Critical value = 2.060  t_a/2 (not given in version 16.1) Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean) 1 2 3 4 2 -11.476 -0.524 3 -4.476 1.524 6.476 12.476 4 -13.476 -7.476 -14.476 -2.524 3.476 -3.524 5 -16.476 -10.476 -17.476 -8.476 -5.524 0.476 -6.524 2.476 Col 1 < Col 2 Col 2 = Col 4

  19. Minitab Output for Broker Data • Grouping Information Using Fisher Method • broker N Mean Grouping • 5 6 17.000 A • 4 6 14.000 A • 2 6 12.000 A • 1 6 6.000 B • 3 6 5.000 B • Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

  20. Pairwise comparisons Method 2: (Tukey Test) A procedure which controls the experimentwise error rate is “TUKEY’S HONESTLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE TEST ”.

  21. Tukey’s method works in a similar way to Fisher’s LSD, except that the “LSD” counterpart (“HSD”) is not ta/2 x MSW x  1+ 1 ni nj ) ( or, for equal number of data points/col , = ta/2 x 2xMSW R but tuk X 2xMSW , R a/2 where tuk has been computed to take into account all the inter-dependencies of the different comparisons.

  22. HSD = tuka/2x2MSW R_______________________________________ A more general approach is to write HSD = qaxMSW Rwhere qa = tuka/2 x2 ---q = (Ylargest - Ysmallest) / MSW R ---- probability distribution of q is called the “Studentized Range Distribution”. --- q = q(c, df), where c =number of columns, and df = df of MSW

  23. With c = 5 and df = 25,from table (or Minitab):q = 4.15tuk = 4.15/1.414 = 2.93 Then, HSD = 4.15 21.2/6 = 7.80 also, 2.93 2x21.2/6 = 7.80

  24. In our earlier example: 3 1 2 4 5 5 6 12 14 17 Rank order: (No differences [contiguous] > 7.80)

  25. Comparison |difference|>or< 7.80 < < > > < > > < < < 3 vs. 1 3 vs. 2 3 vs. 4 3 vs. 5 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 4 1 vs. 5 2 vs. 4 2 vs. 5 4 vs. 5 (contiguous) * 7 9 12 * 8 11 * 5 * 3, 1, 2 4, 5 2 is “same as 1 and 3, but also same as 4 and 5.”

  26. Tukey's pairwise comparisons (Minitab)Family error rate = 0.0500Individual error rate = 0.00706Critical value = 4.15  q_a (not given in version 16.1)Intervals for (column level mean) - (row level mean) 1 2 3 4 2 -13.801 1.801 3 -6.801 -0.801 8.801 14.801 4 -15.801 -9.801 -16.801 -0.199 5.801 -1.199 5 -18.801 -12.801 -19.801 -10.801 -3.199 2.801 -4.199 4.801 Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>One-Way Anova then click “comparisons”.

  27. Minitab Output for Broker Data • Grouping Information Using Tukey Method • broker N Mean Grouping • 5 6 17.000 A • 4 6 14.000 A • 2 6 12.000 A B • 1 6 6.000 B • 3 6 5.000 B • Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

  28. Special Multiple Comp. Method 3: Dunnett’s test Designed specifically for (and incorporating the interdependencies of) comparing several “treatments” to a “control.” Col Example: 1 2 3 4 5 } R=6 6 12 5 14 17 CONTROL Analog of LSD (=t/2 x 2 MSW ) D = Dut/2 x 2 MSW R R From table or Minitab

  29. D= Dut/2 x 2 MSW/R = 2.61 (2(21.2) ) = 6.94 CONTROL 6 1 2 3 4 5 In our example: 6 12 5 14 17 Comparison |difference|>or< 6.94 < < > > 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 4 1 vs. 5 6 1 8 11 - Cols 4 and 5 differ from the control [ 1 ]. - Cols 2 and 3 are not significantly different from control.

  30. Minitab: Stat>>ANOVA>>General Linear Model then click “comparisons”. Dunnett's comparisons with a control (Minitab) Family error rate = 0.0500  controlled!! Individual error rate = 0.0152 Critical value = 2.61  Dut_a/2 Control = level (1) of broker Intervals for treatment mean minus control mean Level Lower Center Upper --+---------+---------+---------+----- 2 -0.930 6.000 12.930 (---------*--------) 3 -7.930 -1.000 5.930 (---------*--------) 4 1.070 8.000 14.930 (--------*---------) 5 4.070 11.000 17.930 (---------*---------) --+---------+---------+---------+----- -7.0 0.0 7.0 14.0

  31. What Method Should We Use? • Fisher procedure can be used only after the F-test in the Anova is significant at 5%. • Otherwise, use Tukey procedure. Note that to avoid being too conservative, the significance level of Tukey test can be set bigger (10%), especially when the number of levels is big.

  32. Contrast Example 1 1 3 4 2 Sulfa Type S1 Sulfa Type S2 Anti-biotic Type A Placebo Suppose the questions of interest are (1) Placebo vs. Non-placebo (2) S1 vs. S2 (3) (Average) S vs. A

  33. In general, a question of interest can be expressed by a linear combination of column means such as with restriction that Saj = 0. Such linear combinations are called contrasts.

  34. Test if a contrast has mean 0 The sum of squares for contrast Z is where R is the number of rows (replicates). The test statistic Fcalc = SSC/MSW is distributed as F with 1 and (df of error) degrees of freedom. Reject E[C]= 0 if the observed Fcalc is too large (say, > F0.05(1,df of error) at 5% significant level).

  35. Example 1 (cont.): aj’s for the 3 contrasts P S1 S2 A 1234 -3 1 1 1 P vs. P: C1 S1 vs. S2:C2 S vs. A: C3 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 -1 2

  36. Calculating top row middle row bottom row      

  37. 5 6 7 10 Y.1 Y.2 Y.3 Y.4 PS1 S2 A Placebo vs. drugs S1 vs. S2 Average S vs. A -3 5.33 1 1 1 0.50 0 1 -1 0 8.17 2 -1 -1 0 14.00

  38. 5.33 42.64 .50 4.00 8.17 65.36

  39. Tests for Contrasts Source SSQ df MSQ F C1 C2 C3 42.64 4.00 65.36 8.53 .80 13.07 42.64 4.00 65.36 1 1 1 Error 140 28 5 F1-.05(1,28)=4.20

  40. Example 1 (Cont.): Conclusions • The mean response for Placebo is significantly different to that for Non-placebo. • There is no significant difference between using Types S1 and S2. • Using Type A is significantly different to using Type S on average.

More Related