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?

    The cases in this data sets are the births.

How many cases are there in our sample?

    There are 1,000 cases in this data set.
dim(nc)
## [1] 1000   13

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.

Categrical: mature, premie, marital, lowbirthweight, gender, habit and whitemom.

Numerical: fage, mage, weeks, visits, gained and weight.

head(nc)
##   fage mage      mature weeks    premie visits marital gained weight
## 1   NA   13 younger mom    39 full term     10 married     38   7.63
## 2   NA   14 younger mom    42 full term     15 married     20   7.88
## 3   19   15 younger mom    37 full term     11 married     38   6.63
## 4   21   15 younger mom    41 full term      6 married     34   8.00
## 5   NA   15 younger mom    39 full term      9 married     27   6.38
## 6   NA   15 younger mom    38 full term     19 married     22   5.38
##   lowbirthweight gender     habit  whitemom
## 1        not low   male nonsmoker not white
## 2        not low   male nonsmoker not white
## 3        not low female nonsmoker     white
## 4        not low   male nonsmoker     white
## 5        not low female nonsmoker not white
## 6            low   male nonsmoker not white

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 of habit and weight 
boxplot(weight~habit,data=nc, main="Relation Between Mother's Habit and Baby's Weight", 
    ylab="Baby's Weight", xlab="Mother Smoker/Non-Smoker")

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

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

    H0:  µ{nonsmoker} - µ{smoker} = 0, There is no difference in the mean of the 
                            weight of babies born to smoking and to nonsmoking mothers.

HA: µ{nonsmoker} - µ{smoker} != 0, There is a difference in the mean of the birth weight
                            of babies born to smoking and to nonsmoking mothers.

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 'BHH2' was built under R version 3.5.3
## 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.

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", 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 )
    Based on our computation We are 95% confident that the population mean falls between ( 38.1528 , 38.5165 ) weeks.
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 )
    Based on our computation We are 90% confident that the population mean falls between ( 38.182 , 38.4873 ) weeks.
    
inference(y = nc$weight, x = nc$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 = 133, mean_mature mom = 7.1256, sd_mature mom = 1.6591
## n_younger mom = 867, mean_younger mom = 7.0972, sd_younger mom = 1.4855
## Observed difference between means (mature mom-younger mom) = 0.0283
## 
## H0: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom = 0 
## HA: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom != 0 
## Standard error = 0.152 
## Test statistic: Z =  0.186 
## p-value =  0.8526

    Based on statistical data, we cannot reject the null hypothesis since the p-value of 0.8526 is greater than alpha of 0.05. Thus the data does not provide convincing evidence that there is a difference between the average weight gained by young mothers and the average weight gained by mature mothers.
    
by(nc$mage, nc$mature, range)
## nc$mature: mature mom
## [1] 35 50
## -------------------------------------------------------- 
## nc$mature: younger mom
## [1] 13 34
    We can use the range to find teh cutoff age between the young mothers and mature mothers. From this function we see that the cutoff is 34 years.

H0: µ{married} - µ{not married} = 0, There is no difference in the mean of the weight gained during pregnancy of between married and single mothers.

HA: µ{married} - µ{not married} != 0, There is a difference in the mean of the weight gained during pregnancy between married and single mothers.

inference(y = nc$gained, x = nc$marital, est = "mean", type = "ht", null = 0, 
          alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical")
## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_married = 370, mean_married = 29.873, sd_married = 15.2721
## n_not married = 603, mean_not married = 30.6036, sd_not married = 13.5757
## Observed difference between means (married-not married) = -0.7307
## 
## H0: mu_married - mu_not married = 0 
## HA: mu_married - mu_not married != 0 
## Standard error = 0.967 
## Test statistic: Z =  -0.755 
## p-value =  0.4502

inference(y = nc$gained, x = nc$marital, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0, 
          alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical") 
## Response variable: numerical, Explanatory variable: categorical
## Difference between two means
## Summary statistics:
## n_married = 370, mean_married = 29.873, sd_married = 15.2721
## n_not married = 603, mean_not married = 30.6036, sd_not married = 13.5757

## Observed difference between means (married-not married) = -0.7307
## 
## Standard error = 0.9675 
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( -2.6269 , 1.1655 )
            Based on the hypothesis test the p-value of 0.4502 is greater than alpha of 0.05 and thus we fail to reject the null hypothesis since                   there is no sufficient evidence that marital status affects the weights of mothers.