logging in or signing up 02-15-02 Stats III bobmali9 Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 28 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: December 05, 2011 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript PowerPoint Presentation: 1 Threats to the Validity of Hypothesis Testing: Confounding Are the Groups Alike at the Start of the Study? Scott Wetstone, M.D. Community Medicine and Health Care University of Connecticut School of MedicinePowerPoint Presentation: 2 Objectives The student should be able to: Define and recognize “confounding variables.” Define “unbalanced confounding variables” and explain how they threaten the validity of a study. List methods that deal with unbalanced confounding variables. Detect ‘obvious’ unbalanced confounding variables in research articles.PowerPoint Presentation: 3 Group Comparison Method Dependent Variable: Death Rate Independent Variable: Smoking Control Group Experimental Group Non-smokers Smokers P experimental Observed Group Difference P control r control r experimentalPowerPoint Presentation: 4 Critical Assumption The members of each group are alike in all possible ways except for the ‘dosage’ of the independent variable.PowerPoint Presentation: 5PowerPoint Presentation: 6 Example Statoma, a newly discovered form of brain neoplasm, has a 75% response rate when treated with standard chemotherapy. An investigator wanted to compare this standard therapy with two other treatment regimens: 1) the standard drug therapy plus radiation, and 2) a new drug. Both the new therapies were reported to have a small rate of impotency as a side effect as well as being potentially lethal in a very small number of cases. Patients from a Statoma clinic were allowed to choose which of the three treatment groups they entered.PowerPoint Presentation: 7 Response rates for the three treatments: standard treatment: 85% standard treatment plus radiation: 65% new drug: 50%PowerPoint Presentation: 8 Confounding Variable Another independent variable (not the primary target of the research study) that affects the value of the dependent (outcome) variable.PowerPoint Presentation: 9 Confounding Variables Almost always EXIST! …………………………… However, they do not necessarily threaten the validity of a research study.PowerPoint Presentation: 10 Unbalanced Confounding Variable When a group has a higher amount of the confounding variable than another group. This unbalanced confounding variable could be the cause of the observed group difference!PowerPoint Presentation: 11PowerPoint Presentation: 12PowerPoint Presentation: 13PowerPoint Presentation: 14PowerPoint Presentation: 15PowerPoint Presentation: 16PowerPoint Presentation: 17PowerPoint Presentation: 18PowerPoint Presentation: 19PowerPoint Presentation: 20 Dealing with Confounding Variables Before group assignment Randomization (group assignment) Homogeneous subjects (inclusion & exclusion criteria) Related sample designs (stratification & matching) After group assignment Subgroup analysis AdjustmentPowerPoint Presentation: 21PowerPoint Presentation: 22PowerPoint Presentation: 23PowerPoint Presentation: 24 Detecting Unbalanced Confounders (Table 1) Inclusion of Potential Confounders (common sense & professional judgment) Screening & diagnostic tests for statistical significance Interval data – t test Count data – binomial & chi-square testsPowerPoint Presentation: 25 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 26 POWER () The ability to detect a true effect, IF it really exists Type II Error () Failure to detect a true effect, IF it really exists = 1 - PowerPoint Presentation: 27 Factors Affecting Power FACTOR p b a n ¯ NE s ¯ ¯ NE | m1-m2 | ¯ NE a ¯ Statistical test YES YES NE data type & dist YES YES NEPowerPoint Presentation: 28 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 29 Two Standard Error RulePowerPoint Presentation: 30 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 31PowerPoint Presentation: 32PowerPoint Presentation: 33PowerPoint Presentation: 34PowerPoint Presentation: 35PowerPoint Presentation: 36PowerPoint Presentation: 37PowerPoint Presentation: 38 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Activity during 1 st hour Time alert (min) (mean & range) Time crying (min) (mean & range) 40 (2-55) 6 (0-31) 27 (5-57) 7.5 (0-46) Brazelton Ridits (24 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes* Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.54 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.52 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.45 + 0.06 0.46 + 0.06 0.48 + 0.06 0.47 + 0.06PowerPoint Presentation: 39 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Brazelton Ridits (72 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.56 + 0.06 0.58 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.57 + 0.06 0.53 + 0.06 0.50 + 0.06 0.49 + 0.06 0.59 + 0.06 Bayley Scales of Infant Development (mean + S.D.) Mental developmental index Physical developmental index 123.8 + 15.4 110.1 + 10.8 122.3 + 16.8 112.2 + 10.1PowerPoint Presentation: 40 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Activity during 1 st hour Time alert (min) (mean & range) Time crying (min) (mean & range) 40 (2-55) 6 (0-31) 27 (5-57) 7.5 (0-46) Brazelton Ridits (24 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes* Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.54 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.52 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.45 + 0.06 0.46 + 0.06 0.48 + 0.06 0.47 + 0.06PowerPoint Presentation: 41 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Brazelton Ridits (72 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.56 + 0.06 0.58 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.57 + 0.06 0.53 + 0.06 0.50 + 0.06 0.49 + 0.06 0.59 + 0.06 Bayley Scales of Infant Development (mean + S.D.) Mental developmental index Physical developmental index 123.8 + 15.4 110.1 + 10.8 122.3 + 16.8 112.2 + 10.1PowerPoint Presentation: 42PowerPoint Presentation: 43PowerPoint Presentation: 44 Successes probability culm prob 0 0.00024 0.00024 1 0.00293 0.00317 2 0.01611 0.01929 3 0.05371 0.07300 4 0.12085 0.19385 5 0.19336 0.38721 6 0.22559 0.61279 7 0.19336 0.80615 8 0.12085 0.92700 9 0.05371 0.98071 10 0.01611 0.99683 11 0.00293 0.99976 12 0.00024 1.00000PowerPoint Presentation: 45 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 46 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) Race (% white) ---- # white # non-white 73 ---- 70 25 62 ---- 65 40 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 47PowerPoint Presentation: 48PowerPoint Presentation: 49 Shift in Placebo Group 2 whites non-whitesPowerPoint Presentation: 50PowerPoint Presentation: 51 Summary The student should be able to: Define and recognize “confounding variables.” Define “unbalanced confounding variables” and explain how they threaten the validity of a study. List methods that deal with unbalanced confounding variables. Detect ‘obvious’ unbalanced confounding variables in research articles.PowerPoint Presentation: 52PowerPoint Presentation: 53 You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
02-15-02 Stats III bobmali9 Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT lite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 28 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: December 05, 2011 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript PowerPoint Presentation: 1 Threats to the Validity of Hypothesis Testing: Confounding Are the Groups Alike at the Start of the Study? Scott Wetstone, M.D. Community Medicine and Health Care University of Connecticut School of MedicinePowerPoint Presentation: 2 Objectives The student should be able to: Define and recognize “confounding variables.” Define “unbalanced confounding variables” and explain how they threaten the validity of a study. List methods that deal with unbalanced confounding variables. Detect ‘obvious’ unbalanced confounding variables in research articles.PowerPoint Presentation: 3 Group Comparison Method Dependent Variable: Death Rate Independent Variable: Smoking Control Group Experimental Group Non-smokers Smokers P experimental Observed Group Difference P control r control r experimentalPowerPoint Presentation: 4 Critical Assumption The members of each group are alike in all possible ways except for the ‘dosage’ of the independent variable.PowerPoint Presentation: 5PowerPoint Presentation: 6 Example Statoma, a newly discovered form of brain neoplasm, has a 75% response rate when treated with standard chemotherapy. An investigator wanted to compare this standard therapy with two other treatment regimens: 1) the standard drug therapy plus radiation, and 2) a new drug. Both the new therapies were reported to have a small rate of impotency as a side effect as well as being potentially lethal in a very small number of cases. Patients from a Statoma clinic were allowed to choose which of the three treatment groups they entered.PowerPoint Presentation: 7 Response rates for the three treatments: standard treatment: 85% standard treatment plus radiation: 65% new drug: 50%PowerPoint Presentation: 8 Confounding Variable Another independent variable (not the primary target of the research study) that affects the value of the dependent (outcome) variable.PowerPoint Presentation: 9 Confounding Variables Almost always EXIST! …………………………… However, they do not necessarily threaten the validity of a research study.PowerPoint Presentation: 10 Unbalanced Confounding Variable When a group has a higher amount of the confounding variable than another group. This unbalanced confounding variable could be the cause of the observed group difference!PowerPoint Presentation: 11PowerPoint Presentation: 12PowerPoint Presentation: 13PowerPoint Presentation: 14PowerPoint Presentation: 15PowerPoint Presentation: 16PowerPoint Presentation: 17PowerPoint Presentation: 18PowerPoint Presentation: 19PowerPoint Presentation: 20 Dealing with Confounding Variables Before group assignment Randomization (group assignment) Homogeneous subjects (inclusion & exclusion criteria) Related sample designs (stratification & matching) After group assignment Subgroup analysis AdjustmentPowerPoint Presentation: 21PowerPoint Presentation: 22PowerPoint Presentation: 23PowerPoint Presentation: 24 Detecting Unbalanced Confounders (Table 1) Inclusion of Potential Confounders (common sense & professional judgment) Screening & diagnostic tests for statistical significance Interval data – t test Count data – binomial & chi-square testsPowerPoint Presentation: 25 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 26 POWER () The ability to detect a true effect, IF it really exists Type II Error () Failure to detect a true effect, IF it really exists = 1 - PowerPoint Presentation: 27 Factors Affecting Power FACTOR p b a n ¯ NE s ¯ ¯ NE | m1-m2 | ¯ NE a ¯ Statistical test YES YES NE data type & dist YES YES NEPowerPoint Presentation: 28 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 29 Two Standard Error RulePowerPoint Presentation: 30 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 31PowerPoint Presentation: 32PowerPoint Presentation: 33PowerPoint Presentation: 34PowerPoint Presentation: 35PowerPoint Presentation: 36PowerPoint Presentation: 37PowerPoint Presentation: 38 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Activity during 1 st hour Time alert (min) (mean & range) Time crying (min) (mean & range) 40 (2-55) 6 (0-31) 27 (5-57) 7.5 (0-46) Brazelton Ridits (24 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes* Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.54 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.52 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.45 + 0.06 0.46 + 0.06 0.48 + 0.06 0.47 + 0.06PowerPoint Presentation: 39 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Brazelton Ridits (72 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.56 + 0.06 0.58 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.57 + 0.06 0.53 + 0.06 0.50 + 0.06 0.49 + 0.06 0.59 + 0.06 Bayley Scales of Infant Development (mean + S.D.) Mental developmental index Physical developmental index 123.8 + 15.4 110.1 + 10.8 122.3 + 16.8 112.2 + 10.1PowerPoint Presentation: 40 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Activity during 1 st hour Time alert (min) (mean & range) Time crying (min) (mean & range) 40 (2-55) 6 (0-31) 27 (5-57) 7.5 (0-46) Brazelton Ridits (24 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes* Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.54 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.52 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.45 + 0.06 0.46 + 0.06 0.48 + 0.06 0.47 + 0.06PowerPoint Presentation: 41 Infant Behavior Feature Leboyer Group (28 Infants) Control Group (26 Infants) Brazelton Ridits (72 hr) (mean + S.E.M.) Interactive processes Motor processes State control Response to stress 0.56 + 0.06 0.58 + 0.06 0.54 + 0.06 0.57 + 0.06 0.53 + 0.06 0.50 + 0.06 0.49 + 0.06 0.59 + 0.06 Bayley Scales of Infant Development (mean + S.D.) Mental developmental index Physical developmental index 123.8 + 15.4 110.1 + 10.8 122.3 + 16.8 112.2 + 10.1PowerPoint Presentation: 42PowerPoint Presentation: 43PowerPoint Presentation: 44 Successes probability culm prob 0 0.00024 0.00024 1 0.00293 0.00317 2 0.01611 0.01929 3 0.05371 0.07300 4 0.12085 0.19385 5 0.19336 0.38721 6 0.22559 0.61279 7 0.19336 0.80615 8 0.12085 0.92700 9 0.05371 0.98071 10 0.01611 0.99683 11 0.00293 0.99976 12 0.00024 1.00000PowerPoint Presentation: 45 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) AGE (yr) (std dev) 62.3 15.1 58.0 17.7 Sex (% male) 58 59 Weight (kg) 75.6 18.8 70.3 17.6 Race (% white) 73 62 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 46 Demographic Characteristics Characteristic Placebo (n = 95) Control (n=105) Race (% white) ---- # white # non-white 73 ---- 70 25 62 ---- 65 40 * Differences between study groups were not significant.PowerPoint Presentation: 47PowerPoint Presentation: 48PowerPoint Presentation: 49 Shift in Placebo Group 2 whites non-whitesPowerPoint Presentation: 50PowerPoint Presentation: 51 Summary The student should be able to: Define and recognize “confounding variables.” Define “unbalanced confounding variables” and explain how they threaten the validity of a study. List methods that deal with unbalanced confounding variables. Detect ‘obvious’ unbalanced confounding variables in research articles.PowerPoint Presentation: 52PowerPoint Presentation: 53