Inference for numerical data

North Carolina births

In 2004, the state of North Carolina released a large data set containing information on births recorded in this state. This data set is useful to researchers studying the relation between habits and practices of expectant mothers and the birth of their children. We will work with a random sample of observations from this data set.

Exploratory analysis

Load the nc data set into our workspace.

load("more/nc.RData")

We have observations on 13 different variables, some categorical and some numerical. The meaning of each variable is as follows.

variable	description
`fage`	father’s age in years.
`mage`	mother’s age in years.
`mature`	maturity status of mother.
`weeks`	length of pregnancy in weeks.
`premie`	whether the birth was classified as premature (premie) or full-term.
`visits`	number of hospital visits during pregnancy.
`marital`	whether mother is `married` or `not married` at birth.
`gained`	weight gained by mother during pregnancy in pounds.
`weight`	weight of the baby at birth in pounds.
`lowbirthweight`	whether baby was classified as low birthweight (`low`) or not (`not low`).
`gender`	gender of the baby, `female` or `male`.
`habit`	status of the mother as a `nonsmoker` or a `smoker`.
`whitemom`	whether mom is `white` or `not white`.

What are the cases in this data set? How many cases are there in our sample?

nrow(nc)

## [1] 1000

Each baby in this data set is one case. There are 1,000 total cases in our sample.

As a first step in the analysis, we should consider summaries of the data. This can be done using the summary command:

summary(nc)

##       fage            mage            mature        weeks      
##  Min.   :14.00   Min.   :13   mature mom :133   Min.   :20.00  
##  1st Qu.:25.00   1st Qu.:22   younger mom:867   1st Qu.:37.00  
##  Median :30.00   Median :27                     Median :39.00  
##  Mean   :30.26   Mean   :27                     Mean   :38.33  
##  3rd Qu.:35.00   3rd Qu.:32                     3rd Qu.:40.00  
##  Max.   :55.00   Max.   :50                     Max.   :45.00  
##  NA's   :171                                    NA's   :2      
##        premie        visits            marital        gained     
##  full term:846   Min.   : 0.0   married    :386   Min.   : 0.00  
##  premie   :152   1st Qu.:10.0   not married:613   1st Qu.:20.00  
##  NA's     :  2   Median :12.0   NA's       :  1   Median :30.00  
##                  Mean   :12.1                     Mean   :30.33  
##                  3rd Qu.:15.0                     3rd Qu.:38.00  
##                  Max.   :30.0                     Max.   :85.00  
##                  NA's   :9                        NA's   :27     
##      weight       lowbirthweight    gender          habit    
##  Min.   : 1.000   low    :111    female:503   nonsmoker:873  
##  1st Qu.: 6.380   not low:889    male  :497   smoker   :126  
##  Median : 7.310                               NA's     :  1  
##  Mean   : 7.101                                              
##  3rd Qu.: 8.060                                              
##  Max.   :11.750                                              
##                                                              
##       whitemom  
##  not white:284  
##  white    :714  
##  NA's     :  2  
##                 
##                 
##                 
##

As you review the variable summaries, consider which variables are categorical and which are numerical. For numerical variables, are there outliers? If you aren’t sure or want to take a closer look at the data, make a graph.

Consider the possible relationship between a mother’s smoking habit and the weight of her baby. Plotting the data is a useful first step because it helps us quickly visualize trends, identify strong associations, and develop research questions.

Make a side-by-side boxplot of habit and weight. What does the plot highlight about the relationship between these two variables?

boxplot(weight ~ habit,data=nc)

Based on this boxplot, smokers appear to give birth to lower birth weight babies.

However, we would need to use statistical inference to determine if the difference we see is significant.

The box plots show how the medians of the two distributions compare, but we can also compare the means of the distributions using the following function to split the weight variable into the habit groups, then take the mean of each using the mean function.

by(nc$weight, nc$habit, mean)

## nc$habit: nonsmoker
## [1] 7.144273
## -------------------------------------------------------- 
## nc$habit: smoker
## [1] 6.82873

There is an observed difference, but is this difference statistically significant? In order to answer this question we will conduct a hypothesis test.

Check if the conditions necessary for inference are satisfied. Note that you will need to obtain sample sizes to check the conditions. You can compute the group size using the same by command above but replacing mean with length.

by(nc$weight, nc$habit,length)

## nc$habit: nonsmoker
## [1] 873
## -------------------------------------------------------- 
## nc$habit: smoker
## [1] 126

Although the samples are large, here the population is also quite large, so they almost certainly represent less than 10% of the population. Thus, observations within them are independent.

We can also assume that the two group samples are independent, as we have no reason to believe otherwise.

Finally, the samples are quite large (100+ for both), enough to handle even a large amount of skew even if each group were not normally distributed.

Write the hypotheses for testing if the average weights of babies born to smoking and non-smoking mothers are different.

Null hypothesis - weights of babies born to smoking and non-smoking mothers are the same. Alternative hypothesis - weights of babies born to smoking and non-smoking mothers are different.

Next, we introduce a new function, inference, that we will use for conducting hypothesis tests and constructing confidence intervals.

inference(y = nc$weight, x = nc$habit, est = "mean", type = "ht", null = 0, 
          alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical")

## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_nonsmoker = 873, mean_nonsmoker = 7.1443, sd_nonsmoker = 1.5187
## n_smoker = 126, mean_smoker = 6.8287, sd_smoker = 1.3862

## Observed difference between means (nonsmoker-smoker) = 0.3155
## 
## H0: mu_nonsmoker - mu_smoker = 0 
## HA: mu_nonsmoker - mu_smoker != 0 
## Standard error = 0.134 
## Test statistic: Z =  2.359 
## p-value =  0.0184

Let’s pause for a moment to go through the arguments of this custom function. The first argument is y, which is the response variable that we are interested in: nc$weight. The second argument is the explanatory variable, x, which is the variable that splits the data into two groups, smokers and non-smokers: nc$habit. The third argument, est, is the parameter we’re interested in: "mean" (other options are "median", or "proportion".) Next we decide on the type of inference we want: a hypothesis test ("ht") or a confidence interval ("ci"). When performing a hypothesis test, we also need to supply the null value, which in this case is 0, since the null hypothesis sets the two population means equal to each other. The alternative hypothesis can be "less", "greater", or "twosided". Lastly, the method of inference can be "theoretical" or "simulation" based.

Change the type argument to "ci" to construct and record a confidence interval for the difference between the weights of babies born to smoking and non-smoking mothers.

inference(y = nc$weight, x = nc$habit, est = "mean", type = "ci",method="theoretical",alternative="twosided")

## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_nonsmoker = 873, mean_nonsmoker = 7.1443, sd_nonsmoker = 1.5187
## n_smoker = 126, mean_smoker = 6.8287, sd_smoker = 1.3862

## Observed difference between means (nonsmoker-smoker) = 0.3155
## 
## Standard error = 0.1338 
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( 0.0534 , 0.5777 )

We can say with 95% confidence that babies born to non-smoking mothers are .05 to .58 pounds heavier on average than babies born to smoking mothers.

By default the function reports an interval for ($\mu_{nonsmoker} - \mu_{smoker}$) . We can easily change this order by using the order argument:

inference(y = nc$weight, x = nc$habit, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0, 
          alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical", 
          order = c("smoker","nonsmoker"))

## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_smoker = 126, mean_smoker = 6.8287, sd_smoker = 1.3862
## n_nonsmoker = 873, mean_nonsmoker = 7.1443, sd_nonsmoker = 1.5187

## Observed difference between means (smoker-nonsmoker) = -0.3155
## 
## Standard error = 0.1338 
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( -0.5777 , -0.0534 )

On your own

Calculate a 95% confidence interval for the average length of pregnancies (weeks) and interpret it in context. Note that since you’re doing inference on a single population parameter, there is no explanatory variable, so you can omit the x variable from the function.

inference(y = nc$weeks, est="mean",type="ci",alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical")

## Single mean 
## Summary statistics:

## mean = 38.3347 ;  sd = 2.9316 ;  n = 998 
## Standard error = 0.0928 
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( 38.1528 , 38.5165 )

We can say with 95% confidence that the mean pregnancy length of the population is 38.15 to 38.52 weeks, assuming this sample is representative of the population.

Calculate a new confidence interval for the same parameter at the 90% confidence level. You can change the confidence level by adding a new argument to the function: conflevel = 0.90.

inference(y = nc$weeks, est="mean",type="ci",alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical",conflevel=0.90)

## Single mean 
## Summary statistics:

## mean = 38.3347 ;  sd = 2.9316 ;  n = 998 
## Standard error = 0.0928 
## 90 % Confidence interval = ( 38.182 , 38.4873 )

If we reduce the confidence interval to 90% confidence level, we can say with 90% confidence that the mean pregnancy length is 38.18 to 38.49 weeks.

Conduct a hypothesis test evaluating whether the average weight gained by younger mothers is different than the average weight gained by mature mothers.

inference(y = nc$gained,x = nc$mature,est="mean",type="ht",alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical",null=0)

## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_mature mom = 129, mean_mature mom = 28.7907, sd_mature mom = 13.4824
## n_younger mom = 844, mean_younger mom = 30.5604, sd_younger mom = 14.3469

## Observed difference between means (mature mom-younger mom) = -1.7697
## 
## H0: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom = 0 
## HA: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom != 0 
## Standard error = 1.286 
## Test statistic: Z =  -1.376 
## p-value =  0.1686

On average, mature moms gain around 1.77 pounds less than younger moms. However, the difference is not statistically significant, with a p-value well above even a lenient alpha of .05.

Now, a non-inference task: Determine the age cutoff for younger and mature mothers. Use a method of your choice, and explain how your method works.

aggregate(mage ~ mature,data=nc,FUN=min)

##        mature mage
## 1  mature mom   35
## 2 younger mom   13

aggregate(mage ~ mature,data=nc,FUN=max)

##        mature mage
## 1  mature mom   50
## 2 younger mom   34

It appears the researchers who created this data set set the cutoff at age 35.

Age 34 or younger were put into category “younger mom”, vs. maternal age 35+ into “mature mom”.

Pick a pair of numerical and categorical variables and come up with a research question evaluating the relationship between these variables. Formulate the question in a way that it can be answered using a hypothesis test and/or a confidence interval. Answer your question using the inference function, report the statistical results, and also provide an explanation in plain language.

Let’s ask if white moms had the same number of hospital visits during pregnancy as non-white moms.

inference(y = nc$visits,x = nc$whitemom,est="mean",type="ht",alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical",null=0)

## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_not white = 279, mean_not white = 11.6272, sd_not white = 4.3644
## n_white = 710, mean_white = 12.3014, sd_white = 3.7701

## Observed difference between means (not white-white) = -0.6742
## 
## H0: mu_not white - mu_white = 0 
## HA: mu_not white - mu_white != 0 
## Standard error = 0.297 
## Test statistic: Z =  -2.269 
## p-value =  0.0232

We find that on average, non-white moms make around 0.67 fewer visits to the hospital during pregnancy than white moms. This result is not super significant (p ~ 0.02), but it would be significant if we use an alpha of .05.

This brings up the important difference between statistically significant and practically significant, though. The mean number of visits for both groups rounds to 12. Even if the difference were a full 1 visit instead of 0.67, this would mean a difference of around 11 vs. 12 visits, or 12 vs. 13 visits, over a whole 9 or 10 month pregnancy. So we might conclude that the effect size is too small for there to be a practical difference here, even if there is a statistically significant difference based on the p-value.

This is a product of OpenIntro that is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. This lab was adapted for OpenIntro by Mine Çetinkaya-Rundel from a lab written by the faculty and TAs of UCLA Statistics.