Source files: https://github.com/djlofland/DATA606_F2019/tree/master/Lab7
## ── Attaching packages ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── tidyverse 1.2.1 ──
## ✔ ggplot2 3.2.1 ✔ purrr 0.3.2
## ✔ tibble 2.1.3 ✔ dplyr 0.8.3
## ✔ tidyr 0.8.3 ✔ stringr 1.4.0
## ✔ readr 1.3.1 ✔ forcats 0.4.0
## ── Conflicts ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── tidyverse_conflicts() ──
## ✖ dplyr::filter() masks stats::filter()
## ✖ dplyr::lag() masks stats::lag()
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.
Load the nc data set into our workspace.
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. |
Each case in the dataset (row) is a single birth event. There are 1000 cases in the dataset.
As a first step in the analysis, we should consider summaries of the data. This can be done using the summary command:
## 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.
Categorical: mature, premie, marital, lowbirthweight, gender, habit, whitemom
Numerical: fage, mage, weeks, visits, gained, weight
fage as 2 high outliers, mage has 1 high outlier, weeks has a number of low outliers and 1 high outlier and has a clear right-skew, visits has outliers both above and below the interquartile range with a lisght left skew towards fewer visits, gained has a number of high outliers but those aside, looks fairly “normal”, and weight has a number of outliers.
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.
habit and weight. What does the plot highlight about the relationship between these two variables?Nonsmoker baby weight has a much wider range of values wit more outliers above and below the IQR. Non-smokers baby weights appear to be slightly higher on average. Smokers’ baby weights appear to be slightly lower with a narrower range of values.
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.
## 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.
by command above but replacing mean with length.## nc$habit: nonsmoker
## [1] 873
## --------------------------------------------------------
## nc$habit: smoker
## [1] 126
Conditions: cases were randomly sampled. We have > 10 cases in each group, smoker and nonsmoker
\(H_{0}\): There is no difference between baby weights based on mom smoking habit
\(H_{A}\): There is as differnce between the baby weights of moms who smoke vs those who don’t
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.
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.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 )
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$weeks, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical")## Single mean
## Summary statistics:
## mean = 38.3347 ; sd = 2.9316 ; n = 998
## Standard error = 0.0928
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( 38.1528 , 38.5165 )
( 38.1528 , 38.5165 )
conflevel = 0.90.inference(y = nc$weeks, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0,
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 )
( 38.182 , 38.4873 )
Conditions: 867 younger women and 133 mature women
\(H_{0}\): Weight gained between young and mature women is the same
\(H_{A}\): Weight gained between young and mature women is different.
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
inference(y = nc$gained, x=nc$mature, est = "mean", type = "ci", 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
##
## Standard error = 1.2857
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( -4.2896 , 0.7502 )
While the mean weight is lower for mature women, it is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence. 0 lbs (our null hypothesis) falls within the 95% confidence interval (-4.2896 ,0.7502) so we cannot reject the null hypothesis.
## # A tibble: 2 x 3
## mature min_age max_age
## <fct> <int> <int>
## 1 mature mom 35 50
## 2 younger mom 13 34
youger women: 13-34 and mature women: 35-50 with the cuttoff at 35yro
inference function, report the statistical results, and also provide an explanation in plain language.Question: Is there a difference in birth weights between male and female babies?
inference(y = nc$weight, x=nc$gender, est = "mean", type = "ht", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical",
)## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_female = 503, mean_female = 6.9029, sd_female = 1.4759
## n_male = 497, mean_male = 7.3015, sd_male = 1.5168
## Observed difference between means (female-male) = -0.3986
##
## H0: mu_female - mu_male = 0
## HA: mu_female - mu_male != 0
## Standard error = 0.095
## Test statistic: Z = -4.211
## p-value = 0
inference(y = nc$weight, x=nc$gender, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical",
)## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_female = 503, mean_female = 6.9029, sd_female = 1.4759
## n_male = 497, mean_male = 7.3015, sd_male = 1.5168
## Observed difference between means (female-male) = -0.3986
##
## Standard error = 0.0947
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( -0.5841 , -0.2131 )
The p-value, 0, from the hypotheis test suggest that we reject the null hypothesis (male and female babies have the same mean birth weight) and we should accept that the weights are different. Since the weights are both skewed from normal, I’d lke to also explore whether the median weights are different between male and female babies.
inference(y = nc$weight, x=nc$gender, est = "median", type = "ht", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "simulation",
)## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two medians
## Summary statistics:
## n_female = 503, median_female = 7.13, n_male = 497, median_male = 7.44,
## Observed difference between medians (female-male) = -0.31
##
## H0: median_female - median_male = 0
## HA: median_female - median_male != 0
## p-value = 0.0026
inference(y = nc$weight, x=nc$gender, est = "median", type = "ci", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "simulation",
)## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two medians
## Summary statistics:
## n_female = 503, median_female = 7.13, n_male = 497, median_male = 7.44,
## Observed difference between medians (female-male) = -0.31
## 95 % Bootstrap interval = ( -0.56 , -0.19 )
Looking at median weights, we also see a clear difference in the same direction with male babies weighting more at birth (p=0.0026).