<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ciskowski003</id>
	<title>Practical Statistics for Educators - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Ciskowski003"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php/Special:Contributions/Ciskowski003"/>
	<updated>2026-09-25T00:11:32Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.31.16</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=The_Box_Plot&amp;diff=449</id>
		<title>The Box Plot</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=The_Box_Plot&amp;diff=449"/>
		<updated>2022-05-05T02:53:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Boxplots==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boxplots can be used to explore distribution of one continuous variable for the whole sample or, alternatively, the researcher can search for scores to be disagregated by different groups.  The output from boxplot gives the researcher a lot of information about the distribution of the continuous variable and the possible influence of the categorical variable.  A boxplot allows the researcher to inspect a pattern of scores within each group and allows visual inspection of the differences between groups &lt;br /&gt;
(Pallant, 2016). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Contributed by Joseph W. Sullivan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Creating a box and whisker plot using SPSS==&lt;br /&gt;
(Refer to emailed file for screen-shots and further assistance)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1)	Open SPSS and EXCEL&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2)	Copy the data (into SPSS) that you would like to use. For example, test scores disaggregated by gender. Make sure that you assign numbers to gender (In example below: 1 = male; 2 = female).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3)	Once data is entered into SPSS (as depicted above), click on: “Graphs  boxplot”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4)	Click “define” (with “simple” &amp;amp; “summary for groups of cases” chosen)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5)	Move “test” (or your variable of choice) into the variable section&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6)	Move “gender” (or whatever you choose) into the “category axis” section.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7)	Click OK.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8)	In order to format in APA, double click on the graph in SPSS. Change each axis to read what you would like them to read.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9)	Close the “chart editor” and copy and paste your final graph from SPSS into your document of choice.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10)	Have a drink to congratulate yourself on a job well done. Please note: this step is not in the latest version of APA).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Chris Longo&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==What is a Box Plot and When is It Used==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The box plot or box-and-whisker plot is a graphic, created by John W. Tukey, used to show the distribution of a set of data. It is frequently used with data that can also be represented with a histogram, but the box plot shows more information than a standard histogram.  For example, the box plot is useful to researchers because it shows extreme scores.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:box-plot-explained.gif]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How to Read a Box Plot==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&amp;#039;s say we ask 282 people how many pairs of shoes they&amp;#039;ve consumed in the past ten years. We&amp;#039;ll sort those responses from least to greatest and then graph them with our box-and-whisker. See the example above.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Take the top 50% of the group (142) who bought more pairs of shoes; they are represented by everything above the median (the white line). Those in the top 25% of shoe buying (71) are shown by the top &amp;quot;whisker&amp;quot; and dots. Dots represent those who bought a lot more shoes than normal or a lot less than normal (outliers). If more than one outlier bought the same number of shoes, dots are placed side by side.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Michael Minzloff&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Manually creating a box and whisker plot ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Box and Whisker plots show the variability of a data set. In order to make a box and whisker plot, you need to know &lt;br /&gt;
Five Number Summary&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1) Least value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2) Greatest Value&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3) Quartile 1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4) Quartile 3&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5) Median&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, if you had a set of numbers and sorted the following from least to greatest on basketball scores for your team during the school year. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14, 15, 20, 26, 27, 30, 30, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38 (least number would be 14, Q1 =23,  median =30  Q3=34 and greatest value is 38)&lt;br /&gt;
Show your kids to make a number line.  In this instance, it would be counting up to 38 from 14 by 2&amp;#039;s&lt;br /&gt;
Put a dot above 14 and above 38 which are your least and greatest.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Then put vertical lines above your Q1 which is 23, Median which is 30 and Q3 which is 34.  Connect the lines to make a box with 23, 30 and 34.  Then extend a vertical line from 23 to 14. This is the whisker because it is outside the box.  Do the same with the other side of your box which would be to extend a line from 34 to 38. That is the other whisker.&lt;br /&gt;
There you have it!  You have not only learned how to read The Box Plot and but also how to create it.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed from Tania Nicole Sutherland&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How-to Video==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How to create a box and whisker plot using SPSS  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRaMDHiIvc4&amp;amp;feature=youtu]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Jen Eraca&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How to Identify Outliers: The 1.5 x &amp;#039;&amp;#039;IQR&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Rule==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Call an observation an outlier if it falls more than 1.5 x &amp;#039;&amp;#039;IQR&amp;#039;&amp;#039; above the third quartile or below the first quartile. That is,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Low outliers &amp;lt; Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; - 1.5 x &amp;#039;&amp;#039;IQR&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
High outliers &amp;gt; Q&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; + 1.5 x &amp;#039;&amp;#039;IQR&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Identifying outliers in a distribution is important for several reasons:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;They might be inaccurate data values.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Maybe someone recorded a value as 10.1 instead of 101.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;They can indicate a remarkable occurrence.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in a game.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;They can heavily influence the values of some summary statistics,&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like the mean, range, and standard deviation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=444</id>
		<title>Confidence Intervals</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=444"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T15:12:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Confidence Intervals: The Basics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Creating Confidence Intervals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of confidence intervals is in part, due to the fact that the traditional and restricted framework of statistical significance testing has not been universally endorsed, therefore creating the need for confidence intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This comes down to a simple question, &amp;quot;Is it possible to assert something positive and tangible about the means of the groups in an experimental study?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of using significance level in a study, it maybe more beneficial to use a confidence interval (which is the opposite of the significance level).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, saying &amp;quot;the 6 month survival rate wan increased by 30 percentage points with a 99% confidence interval&amp;quot; than by simple saying the difference between the control group and experimental group was significant at the .01 level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the confidence interval then, becomes the percentage remaining from the significance level. In this this case 100-1= 99%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Mykal Kuslis, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meyers, S., Gamst, G., &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (p.24-25)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Confidence Intervals: The Basics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To estimate an unknown population parameter, start with a statistic that will provide a reasonable guess. The chosen statistic is a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimator&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. The specific value of the point estimator that we use gives a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;confidence interval&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; gives an interval of plausible values for an unknown population parameter based on sample data. Plausible does not mean the same thing as possible. You could argue that just about any value of a parameter is &amp;#039;&amp;#039;possible&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Plausible&amp;#039;&amp;#039; means that we shouldn&amp;#039;t be surprised if any one of the values in the interval is equal to the parameter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interval estimate has the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate ± margin of error&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When calculating a confidence interval, it is common to use the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;statistic ± (critical value) ∙ (standard deviation of statistic).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To interpret a C% confidence interval, say &amp;quot;We are C% confident that the interval from ____ to ____ captures the [parameter in context].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=443</id>
		<title>Confidence Intervals</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=443"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T15:07:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Confidence Intervals: The Basics */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Creating Confidence Intervals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of confidence intervals is in part, due to the fact that the traditional and restricted framework of statistical significance testing has not been universally endorsed, therefore creating the need for confidence intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This comes down to a simple question, &amp;quot;Is it possible to assert something positive and tangible about the means of the groups in an experimental study?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of using significance level in a study, it maybe more beneficial to use a confidence interval (which is the opposite of the significance level).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, saying &amp;quot;the 6 month survival rate wan increased by 30 percentage points with a 99% confidence interval&amp;quot; than by simple saying the difference between the control group and experimental group was significant at the .01 level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the confidence interval then, becomes the percentage remaining from the significance level. In this this case 100-1= 99%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Mykal Kuslis, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meyers, S., Gamst, G., &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (p.24-25)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Confidence Intervals: The Basics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To estimate an unknown population parameter, start with a statistic that will provide a reasonable guess. The chosen statistic is a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimator&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. The specific value of the point estimator that we use gives a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;confidence interval&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; gives an interval of plausible values for an unknown population parameter based on sample data. Plausible does not mean the same thing as possible. You could argue that just about any value of a parameter is &amp;#039;&amp;#039;possible&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Plausible&amp;#039;&amp;#039; means that we shouldn&amp;#039;t be surprised if any one of the values in the interval is equal to the parameter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interval estimate has the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate ± margin of error&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When calculating a confidence interval, it is common to use the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;statistic ± (critical value) ∙ (standard deviation of statistic).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To interpret a C% confidence interval, say &amp;quot;We are C% confident that the interval from ____ to ____ captures the [parameter in context].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=442</id>
		<title>Confidence Intervals</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=442"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T15:04:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* How to organize an Inference Problem : The Four-Step Process */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Creating Confidence Intervals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of confidence intervals is in part, due to the fact that the traditional and restricted framework of statistical significance testing has not been universally endorsed, therefore creating the need for confidence intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This comes down to a simple question, &amp;quot;Is it possible to assert something positive and tangible about the means of the groups in an experimental study?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of using significance level in a study, it maybe more beneficial to use a confidence interval (which is the opposite of the significance level).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, saying &amp;quot;the 6 month survival rate wan increased by 30 percentage points with a 99% confidence interval&amp;quot; than by simple saying the difference between the control group and experimental group was significant at the .01 level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the confidence interval then, becomes the percentage remaining from the significance level. In this this case 100-1= 99%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Mykal Kuslis, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meyers, S., Gamst, G., &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (p.24-25)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Confidence Intervals: The Basics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To estimate an unknown population parameter, start with a statistic that will provide a reasonable guess. The chosen statistic is a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimator&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. The specific value of the point estimator that we use gives a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for the parameter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;confidence interval&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; gives an interval of plausible values for an unknown population parameter based on sample data. Plausible does not mean the same thing as possible. You could argue that just about any value of a parameter is &amp;#039;&amp;#039;possible&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Plausible&amp;#039;&amp;#039; means that we shouldn&amp;#039;t be surprised if any one of the values in the interval is equal to the parameter.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The interval estimate has the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;point estimate ± margin of error&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When calculating a confidence interval, it is common to use the form &amp;#039;&amp;#039;statistic ± (critical value) ∙ (standard deviation of statistic).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To interpret a C% confidence interval, say &amp;quot;We are C% confident that the interval from ____ to ____ captures the [parameter in context].&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=441</id>
		<title>Confidence Intervals</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Confidence_Intervals&amp;diff=441"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T14:28:51Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Creating Confidence Intervals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The use of confidence intervals is in part, due to the fact that the traditional and restricted framework of statistical significance testing has not been universally endorsed, therefore creating the need for confidence intervals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This comes down to a simple question, &amp;quot;Is it possible to assert something positive and tangible about the means of the groups in an experimental study?&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of using significance level in a study, it maybe more beneficial to use a confidence interval (which is the opposite of the significance level).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example, saying &amp;quot;the 6 month survival rate wan increased by 30 percentage points with a 99% confidence interval&amp;quot; than by simple saying the difference between the control group and experimental group was significant at the .01 level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The creation of the confidence interval then, becomes the percentage remaining from the significance level. In this this case 100-1= 99%&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Mykal Kuslis, WCSU Cohort 8&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Meyers, S., Gamst, G., &amp;amp; Guarino, A.J. (2017). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (p.24-25)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How to organize an Inference Problem : The Four-Step Process==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;STATE:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; State the parameter you want to estimate and the confidence level.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;PLAN:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Identify the appropriate inference method and check conditions. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;DO:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; If the conditions are met, perform calculations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;CONCLUDE:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Interpret your interval in the context of the problem.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=440</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=440"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T14:21:14Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠ null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Scatter_Plots&amp;diff=439</id>
		<title>Scatter Plots</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Scatter_Plots&amp;diff=439"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T14:18:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==How to create a scatter plot in Google Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! Step&lt;br /&gt;
! Action&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Select two columns of data (first column will be graphed on the x-axis and second column will be graphed on the y-axis)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 2&lt;br /&gt;
| Words in row 1 of the columns will be labels for x- and y-axis&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 3&lt;br /&gt;
| Select Insert Graph&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 4&lt;br /&gt;
| Under Chart Type Select Scatter&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 5&lt;br /&gt;
| Select Customize tab to edit the chart&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 6&lt;br /&gt;
| To add a trendline, select series and check trendline&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 7&lt;br /&gt;
| To add Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r), select series and check show R^2&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 8&lt;br /&gt;
| Change the min and max values on the axes by selecting Horizontal axis or Vertical axis and changing min and/or max values to new values&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sara Dalton&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==How to label the dots on a scatter plot in Google Sheets==&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! Step&lt;br /&gt;
! Action&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 1&lt;br /&gt;
| Create a scatter plot which includes three columns--two columns of data and a third column of labels&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 2&lt;br /&gt;
| X-axis is first column of data&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 3&lt;br /&gt;
| Series is second column of data&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 4&lt;br /&gt;
| Edit Series to add labels&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Step 5&lt;br /&gt;
| Under series, select or type in the range of the third column that contains the labels&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sara Dalton&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Image of different types of correlation==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:correlation.png||test]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Image link: https://medium.com/@dipti.rohan.pawar/correlation-statistical-analysis-9471411f0431&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Sara Dalton&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==What is a scatterplot?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;scatterplot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; shows the relationship between two &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;quantitative variables&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; measured on the same &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;individuals&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The values of one variable appear on the horizontal axis (x axis) and the values of the other variable appear on the vertical axis (y axis). Each individual in the data set appears as a point on the graph.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;quantitative variable&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; takes number values that are quantities - counts or measurements. Number of people  and household income are quantitative variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;individual&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is an object described in a set of data. Individuals can be people, animals, or things.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scatterplots&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; are the only choice for displaying the relationship between two quantitative variables. For a single quantitative variable, there are many choices for displaying its distribution, including dotplots, histograms, boxplots and stemplots.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Contributions_here&amp;diff=438</id>
		<title>Contributions here</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Contributions_here&amp;diff=438"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:17:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Student Contributors */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Editor ==&lt;br /&gt;
Frank LaBanca, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Faculty Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Karen Burke, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patricia Cosentino, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Deborah Hardy, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jennifer Mitchell, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Student Contributors ==&lt;br /&gt;
Jennifer Blue&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Bozzuto&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Brooksbank&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Ciskowski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katie Ciskowski&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cassandra Cosentino&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lisa Daigle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sara Dalton&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jennifer Eraca&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Fernand&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Karen Fildes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thomas Fox&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nicole Griffin&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kristina Hislop&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Damien Holst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kaitlyn Kakadeles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Britany Kuslis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mykal Kuslis&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kara Kunst&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Helen Knudsen&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Michael Minzloff&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sandra Peña&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sheri Prendergast&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Emily Rhew&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
John Ryan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tania Nicole Sutherland&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph W. Sullivan&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Scott Trungadi&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=437</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=437"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:11:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠ null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=436</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=436"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:10:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=435</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=435"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:10:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value&amp;lt;α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value&amp;gt;α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=434</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=434"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:08:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=433</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=433"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:07:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;#039;&amp;#039;against&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=432</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=432"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:06:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=431</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=431"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:05:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=430</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=430"/>
		<updated>2022-05-04T02:04:50Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Hypothesis Testing */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion &amp;#039;&amp;#039;p&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or the population mean &amp;#039;&amp;#039;μ&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=429</id>
		<title>Hypothesis testing</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Hypothesis_testing&amp;diff=429"/>
		<updated>2022-05-03T19:01:19Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Hypothesis Testing ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a procedure for using observed data to decide between two competing claims, called hypotheses. The hypotheses are often statements about a parameter, like the population proportion p or the population mean μ. A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;hypothesis test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is sometimes referred to as a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance test&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hypothesis Testing: The Basics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim that we weigh evidence &amp;quot;against&amp;quot; in a hypothesis test is called the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;null hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0). The null hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0: parameter = null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*The claim about the population that we are trying to find evidence for is the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;alternative hypothesis&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a).&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;one-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter &amp;lt; null value or H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter &amp;gt; null value.&lt;br /&gt;
**A &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;two-sided&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; alternative hypothesis has the form H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a: parameter ≠null value.&lt;br /&gt;
*Often, H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0 is a statement of no change or no difference. The alternative hypothesis states what we hope or suspect is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;P-value&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; of a test is the probability of getting evidence for the alternative hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a that is as strong or stronger than the observed evidence when the null hypothesis H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0 is true.&lt;br /&gt;
*Small P-values are evidence against the null hypothesis and for the alternative hypothesis because they say that the observed result is unlikely to occur when H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0 is true. To determine if a P-value should be considered small, we compare it to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;significance level α&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
*We make a conclusion in a hypothesis test based on the P-value.&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;lt; α: Reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0 and conclude there is convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
**If P-value &amp;gt; α: Fail to reject H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;0 and conclude there is no convincing evidence for H&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;a (in context).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition) (Sixth Edition). W H FREEMAN &amp;amp; CO LTD. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The words probability and confidence seem to come up a lot. You should be getting the message that few things are definite in our discipline, or in any empirical science. Sometimes we get it wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type I Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A level of significance of 5% is the rate you&amp;#039;ll declare results to be significant when there are no relationships in the population. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of false alarms or false positives. Such things happen, because some samples show a relationship just by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
The only time you need to worry about setting the Type I error rate is when you look for a lot of effects in your data. The more effects you look for, the more likely it is that you will turn up an effect that seems bigger than it really is. This phenomenon is usually called the inflation of the overall Type I error rate, or the cumulative Type I error rate. So if you&amp;#039;re going fishing for relationships amongst a lot of variables, and you want your readers to believe every &amp;quot;catch&amp;quot; (significant effect), you&amp;#039;re supposed to reduce the Type I error rate by adjusting the p value downwards for declaring statistical significance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The simplest adjustment is called the Bonferroni. For example, if you do three tests, you should reduce the p value to 0.05/3, or about 0.02. This adjustment follows quite simply from the meaning of probability, on the assumption that the three tests are independent. If the tests are not independent, the adjustment is too severe. For example, Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals for three effects would each be 98% confidence. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why not use a lower p value all the time, for example a p value of 0.01, to declare significance? Surely that way only one in every 100 effects you test for is likely to be bogus? Yes, but it is harder to get significant results, unless you use a bigger sample to narrow down that confidence interval. In any case, you are entitled to stay with a 5% level for one or two tests, if they are pre-planned--in other words, if you set up the whole study just to do these tests. It&amp;#039;s only when you tack on a lot of other tests afterwards (so-called post-hoc tests) that you need to be wary of false alarms.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Type II Error ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The other sort of error is the chance you&amp;#039;ll miss the effect (i.e. declare that there is no significant effect) when it really is there. In other words, it&amp;#039;s the rate of failed alarms or false negatives. Once again, the alarm will fail sometimes purely by chance: the effect is present in the population, but the sample you drew doesn&amp;#039;t show it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The smaller the sample, the more likely you are to commit a Type II error, because the confidence interval is wider and more likely to overlap zero. The Type II error needs to be considered explicitly at the time you design your study. That&amp;#039;s when you&amp;#039;re supposed to work out the sample size needed to make sure your study has the power to detect anything useful. For this purpose, the usual Type II error rate is set to 20%, or 10% for really classy studies. The power of the study is sometimes referred to as 80% (or 90% for a Type II error rate of 10%). In other words, the study has enough power to detect the smallest worthwhile effects 80% (or 90%) of the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Bias ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
People use the term bias to describe deviation from the truth. That&amp;#039;s the way we use the term in statistics, too: we say that a statistic is biased if the average value of the statistic from many samples is different from the value in the population. To put it simply, the value from a sample tends to be wrong. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The easiest way to get bias is to use a sample that is in some way a non-random sample of the population: if the average subject in the sample tends to be different from the average person in the population, the effect you are looking at could well be different in the sample compared with the population. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some statistics are biased, if we calculate them in the wrong way. Using n instead of n-1 to work out a standard deviation is a good example. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Karen Burke, EdD&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=428</id>
		<title>Empirical Rule</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=428"/>
		<updated>2022-04-30T02:04:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Empirical Rule (also known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule) */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Empirical Rule (also known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Empirical_rule_wiki.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a Normal Distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ:&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 68% of the observations fall within σ of the mean μ. &lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 95% of the observations fall within 2σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 99.7% of the observations fall within 3σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
This result is known as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;empirical rule&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reference:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H Freeman &amp;amp; CO LTD.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=427</id>
		<title>Empirical Rule</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=427"/>
		<updated>2022-04-30T02:00:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Empirical Rule (also known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Empirical_rule_wiki.png]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a Normal Distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ:&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 68% of the observations fall within σ of the mean μ. &lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 95% of the observations fall within 2σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 99.7% of the observations fall within 3σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
This result is known as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;empirical rule&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H Freeman &amp;amp; CO LTD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=File:Empirical_rule_wiki.png&amp;diff=426</id>
		<title>File:Empirical rule wiki.png</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=File:Empirical_rule_wiki.png&amp;diff=426"/>
		<updated>2022-04-30T01:58:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=425</id>
		<title>Empirical Rule</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Empirical_Rule&amp;diff=425"/>
		<updated>2022-04-30T01:57:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: Created page with &amp;quot;== Empirical Rule (also known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule) ==   In a Normal Distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ: *Approximately 68% of the observations fall within...&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== Empirical Rule (also known as the 68-95-99.7 Rule) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a Normal Distribution with mean μ and standard deviation σ:&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 68% of the observations fall within σ of the mean μ. &lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 95% of the observations fall within 2σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
*Approximately 99.7% of the observations fall within 3σ of the mean μ.&lt;br /&gt;
This result is known as the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;empirical rule&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Daren, S. S., &amp;amp; Tabor, J. (2020). &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Updated version of the practice of Statistics (Teachers Edition)&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (Sixth Edition). W H Freeman &amp;amp; CO LTD.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Katie Ciskowski&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=424</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://practicalstats.labanca.net/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=424"/>
		<updated>2022-04-30T01:46:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Ciskowski003: /* Modules */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Practical Statistics for Educators&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
edited and maintained by Frank LaBanca, EdD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Philosophy ==&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Quantitative statistical analyses can be intimidating for many educators pursing an advanced academic degree.  The thought of computational math can sometimes trigger unwarranted fears. Quantitative research in education and other fields of inquiry is expressed in numbers and measurements. This type of research aims to find data to confirm or test a hypothesis. Quantitative study requires extensive statistical analysis, which can be difficult to perform for researchers from non- statistical backgrounds. Statistical analysis is based on scientific discipline and hence difficult for non-mathematicians to perform. But once one begins to embark on understanding all of the representations, descriptions, and analyses of particular data sets, statistics becomes an educator’s friend not foe. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here, we approach statistics from a straightforward conceptually-based perspective.  Our goal is to collaborate and provide insight for statistics that make them meaningful tools in the educational arena.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each &amp;quot;module&amp;quot; corresponds with the topics presented each week, and will expand as the course progresses.  A topical outline can be found @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_46hhzzcsgt ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Comments and edits are welcome and encouraged!  Please give yourself credit as you contribute.  At the end of a section you insert please add the following in italics:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by &amp;lt;your name&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
If you are modifying content, add the following under the contribution line:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;modified by &amp;lt;your name&amp;gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  We are glad to accept as many modifications as necessary to give the most meaning to each section.  As we asynchronously socially construct knowledge together, we can recognize the accomplishments and contributions of each writer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;contributed by Frank LaBanca, EdD, modified by Jennifer Blue&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Contributions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our contributors [[contributions here]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Please submit your contribution at [https://forms.gle/PBaVrxFffbk5CKgg8]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Modules ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.1 [[The Greek Alphabet]] and its significance in statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.2 [[An introduction to probability]] PowerPoint @[http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_97wcrbtsn]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
1.3 [[Some Probability Formulas]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.1 [[Types of Data]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.2 [[Visualizing Data]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.3 Visually representing data PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?docid=dfqvtcqp_27dwth2zz2#]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.3.1 Table 2 from LaBanca dissertation @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_25cb5pqcfw]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.3.2 Cool graph of movie box office from NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/20080223_REVENUE_GRAPHIC.html#]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.3.4 [[Histograms]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.3.5 Scatterplots YouTube @ [http://youtu.be/HFuU1uxJ1tQ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.4 [[Shapes of distribution]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.5 Survey of Attitudes Toward Statistics (SATS) Data Set @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7PokF_oAoCRUg]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
2.6 [[Data Screening]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.1 [[Central Tendency]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.1.1 Central Tendency and Normal Distribution PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_47dfhfr4nw ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.1.2 Central Tendency YouTube @ [http://youtu.be/Fn4z8RDpwDY]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.2 [[Interquartile ranges]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.2.1 [[The Box Plot]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.2.2 Interpreting a Box Plot - video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2C9I8HuCe4]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.3 [[Standard deviation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.3.1 [[Identifying percentile ranks and scores based on standard deviation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.3.1.a [[Practice Identifying percentile ranks and scores based on standard deviation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.4 [[z-scores]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
3.5 [[Empirical Rule]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.1 [[Percentile Rank]]&lt;br /&gt;
4.1.1 Areas under the standard normal curve for z values @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7NstEjJ40jJOQ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.1.2 z scores corresponding to divisions of the area under the normal curve @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7P6SVNiBdWbEg]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.2 Conversion of data PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_98chfzg2tf]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of USRT data @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_61db6smpdm ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.3 [[Normal Curve Equivalent scores]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.3 [[Standard Error of Measurement]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.4 [[Confidence Intervals]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
4.4 z score machine @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7N8oLJZwmr3Zw]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.1 [[Pearson r]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.2 [[Rules of thumb for interpreting the size of a correlation coefficient]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.3 Critical values for the correlation coefficient @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7MkuRpIgceTRQ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.4 [[Spearman rho]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.5 Correlation PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_134hsxg7td7]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.6 [[Writing samples for correlations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
5.7 [[Scatter Plots]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.1 [[Inferential Statistics Definition]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.2 [[Sampling]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.3 [[Sampling distributions]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.4 t test PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_153gr9f3hgd]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.4.1 t -t test video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2dYGnZ70X0]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.4.2 [[t-test - What is a t-test?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.5 Sample data set  @ [http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/liu/stat/help/help.htm]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.6 Critical values for t @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7OZzyZeHg9MIA]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
6.7 Helpful Tutorial for Running a t-Test in Excel @ [https://www.rwu.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/fcas/mns/running_a_t-test_in_excel.pdf]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.1 [[Effect size]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.1.1 Effect size calculator @ http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/resources/effect_size_input.php&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.1.2 [[Rules of thumb for interpreting effect sizes]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.2 Effect size PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_204f42f67dx ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.3 [[Hypothesis testing]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.4 Hypothesis testing PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_23295tm65dx]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.5.1  Hypothesis testing template for a correlation @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_174ccchz4ds]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
7.5.2  Hypothesis testing template for a t test @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_175hjcdsjff]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.1 [[Type I and Type II Errors]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.2 Type I and Type II Errors PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_258wcq56rdv]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.3 [[Levene&amp;#039;s p versus the test statistic p]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.4 [[Analysis of Variance]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.5 ANOVA PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_265ckd9j9dv]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.6 [[ANOVA Case study]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.7 ANOVA video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITf4vHhyGpc]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.8 Critical values for the F statistic @ [http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/grahamh/RM1web/F-ratio%20table%202005.pdf]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
8.9 [[Rules of thumb for interpreting effect sizes of ANOVAs]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9.1 Post Hoc test PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_284dbhghdc9]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9.2 [[Selecting a Post Hoc test]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
9.3 Hypothesis testing template for ANOVA @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_295ckngxdgj]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1 [[Chi square]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.1.1 Chi square video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VskmMgXmkMQ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.2 [[Example for calculating chi square]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.3 Critical values for chi square @ [http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pmUxljSzLg7OhBVHQWoHTIQ]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.4 [[Chi square analysis description/sample writing]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
10.5 Chi square PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_297dhg685g8]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.1 [[Beyond the ANOVA]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.2 Beyond ANOVA PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_307cmrtpxg3]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.3 2-way ANOVA PowerPoint @ [http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfqvtcqp_325hrt86ggt]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.4 2-way ANOVA template @ [http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfqvtcqp_372599pr6w6]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.5 1-way ANOVA Annotated SPSS Output @ [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i0kIWgmXLCEIIIYCSqh2JS9Th3T_pyRC/view?usp=sharing] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
11.6 2-way ANOVA Annotated SPSS Output @ [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wX4xhQa7KGCd1Hey7VfX33Y1uT6QHdEu/view?usp=sharing]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.1 [[MANOVA]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.2 [[Homogeneity vs Homoscedacity]] (Levene vs Box&amp;#039;s M)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.3 [[Post Hoc ANOVAs for MANOVA]] (univariate)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.4 [[Post Hoc Discriminant Analysis]] (multivariate)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.5 [[Covariates]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.6 [[MANCOVA]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.7 MANOVA Annotated SPSS Output @ [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GiErYfmCdiNQlCps3anF4Bu3C_iYS7oD/view?usp=sharing]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
12.8 MANCOVA Annotated SPSS Output @ [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TodMQy4vQ4eHStSIAevATOuJuFg9KUTD/view?usp=sharing]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13.1  [[Multiple Regression Analysis]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13.1.1 [[Collinearity]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13.2  [[Multiple Linear Regression]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13.3 Reading the MLR Output: An annotated output [https://drive.google.com/file/d/141RNyYNnuDDTNvHYi4fE8EF8qWmal1aa/view?usp=sharing]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
13.4 MLR Annotated SPSS Output @ [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SsPL1YD4VYguxLtwqM_R7GFBD5RsG9H6/view?usp=sharing]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14.1  Internal Consistency Reliability[https://docs.google.com/document/d/18K16I8u9sbwpUhW9nIENF4x9wDXAy-4wFuBp6a0AljA/edit]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14.1.1 [[Internal Consistency Reliability]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14.2  Cronbach&amp;#039;s Alpha[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_eyXOcFrBcDSctM27a9T2kUlx9D8TidV_YTHk-wvTu0/edit]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14.2.1  [[Cronbach&amp;#039;s Alpha Values]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
14.2.2 Cronbach&amp;#039;s Alpha in SPSS [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz8OdR6lV44]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Applied Research Designs ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15.1 [[Instrumentation]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15.2 [[Limitations]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
15.3 [[Practice determining the stat]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Getting started ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Ciskowski003</name></author>
		
	</entry>
</feed>