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

A case is the birth of a child. There are 1000 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.

  1. 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)

The plot highlights the median birthweight of children of smokers is lower, and in general it is skewed very much lower (with a smaller IQR, and a much lower upper whisker, as well as the lack of any positive outliers.)

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.

Inference

  1. 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.

Conditions include:

Simple Random Sample from a population - This is a random sample of 1000 from the overall larger population dataset released by North Carolina, so this condition is satisfied

Observations have a nearly normal distribution - Let’s plot some of the variables to get an idea for distribution

hist(nc$weight)

Symmetric and single peaked, this is very nearly normal

Let’s also look at sample size

by(nc$weight, nc$habit, length)
## nc$habit: nonsmoker
## [1] 873
## -------------------------------------------------------- 
## nc$habit: smoker
## [1] 126

With both sample sizes greater than 100, we are good to go.

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

Null Hypothesis (H0): Birthweight of children of nonsmoking mothers is the same as birthweight of children of smoking mothers.

H0 : Mu_nonsmoking - Mu_smoking = 0

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): Birthweight of children of nonsmoking mother is NOT the same as birthweight of children of smoking mothers.

Ha : Mu_nonsmoking - Mu_smoking != 0

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")
## Warning: package 'openintro' was built under R version 3.5.2
## Warning: package 'BHH2' was built under R version 3.5.2
## 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.

  1. 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", 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
## 
## Standard error = 0.1338 
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( 0.0534 , 0.5777 )

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

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 )

a. We are 95% confident that the true population mean of length of pregnancies is between 38.1528 weeks and 38.5165 weeks.

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

max(subset(nc, mature == "younger mom")$mage)
## [1] 34
min(subset(nc, mature == "mature mom")$mage)
## [1] 35

Working from the inside out, the function first pulls a subset of our data to look at cases where the mom is younger, then selects only the age (‘mage’) variable, and places that into the ‘max’ function to find the highest value.

Conversely we do the same with ‘mature mom’ but check the minimum value.

We see that the cutoff age for ‘younger mom’ is 34.

a.) Does marital status change with age of mother?

H0 = There is no difference in age of married and unmarried mothers. (mu_married - mu_not married = 0)

Ha = Age of married mothers is different than unmarried mothers. (mu_married - mu_not married != 0)

inference(y = nc$mage, x = nc$marital, est = "mean", type = "ht", null = 0, 
          alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical", order = c('not married','married'))
## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_not married = 613, mean_not married = 29.1419, sd_not married = 5.524
## n_married = 386, mean_married = 23.5622, sd_married = 5.658
## Observed difference between means (not married-married) = 5.5797
## 
## H0: mu_not married - mu_married = 0 
## HA: mu_not married - mu_married != 0 
## Standard error = 0.364 
## Test statistic: Z =  15.316 
## p-value =  0

According to our analysis there is a 0% chance of observing the difference in means from our sample if the null hypothesis were true, thus we can reject that hypothesis in favor of our alternative.

In laymens terms this means we can say with a very high (~100%) confidence that age of unmarried mothers is not the same as married mothers.

From our boxplots we can see that married mothers actually tend to be much younger than unmarried. This may not have been expected (there is a common stereotype of young mothers having kids out of wedlock), so this is a very interesting finding!

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.