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 . |
The cases are births in North Carolina from 2004. There are 1000 of them.
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 premie
## Min. :14.00 Min. :13 mature mom :133 Min. :20.00 full term:846
## 1st Qu.:25.00 1st Qu.:22 younger mom:867 1st Qu.:37.00 premie :152
## Median :30.00 Median :27 Median :39.00 NA's : 2
## 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
## visits marital gained weight
## Min. : 0.0 married :386 Min. : 0.00 Min. : 1.000
## 1st Qu.:10.0 not married:613 1st Qu.:20.00 1st Qu.: 6.380
## Median :12.0 NA's : 1 Median :30.00 Median : 7.310
## Mean :12.1 Mean :30.33 Mean : 7.101
## 3rd Qu.:15.0 3rd Qu.:38.00 3rd Qu.: 8.060
## Max. :30.0 Max. :85.00 Max. :11.750
## NA's :9 NA's :27
## lowbirthweight gender habit whitemom
## low :111 female:503 nonsmoker:873 not white:284
## not low:889 male :497 smoker :126 white :714
## NA's : 1 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.
habit
and weight
. What does the plot highlight about the relationship between these two variables?‘nonsmoker’ is associated with a higher and more variable weight than ‘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.
## nc$habit: nonsmoker
## [1] 7.144273
## ------------------------------------------------------------
## nc$habit: smoker
## [1] 6.82873
## function (x, ...)
## UseMethod("mean")
## <bytecode: 0x000000001159a070>
## <environment: namespace:base>
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
The conditions for inference are met: There are at least 10 samples in each group, the sample is random, the observations are independent, and they make up less than 10% of their population.
Null hypothesis: smoking has no significant impact on birthweight. Alternate hyptohesis: smoking does have a signicant impact on birthweight.
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.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 )
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$weeks, est = "mean", type = "ci", null = 0,
alternative = "twosided", method = "theoretical")
## Single mean
## Summary statistics:
## mean = 38.3347 ; sd = 2.9316 ; n = 998
## Standard error = 0.0928
## 95 % Confidence interval = ( 38.1528 , 38.5165 )
conflevel = 0.90
.inference(y = nc$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 )
inference(y = nc$weeks, x = nc$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 = 132, mean_mature mom = 38.0227, sd_mature mom = 3.2184
## n_younger mom = 866, mean_younger mom = 38.3822, sd_younger mom = 2.8844
## Observed difference between means (mature mom-younger mom) = -0.3595
##
## H0: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom = 0
## HA: mu_mature mom - mu_younger mom != 0
## Standard error = 0.297
## Test statistic: Z = -1.211
## p-value = 0.2258
## [1] 34
The cutoff for consideration as a ‘younger mom’ is 34; as in only mothers 34 and under. My method takes the maximum age amongst mothers who have the mature value: ‘younger mom’. One could also take the minimum age of older mothers
inference
function, report the statistical results, and also provide an explanation in plain language.Is there a significant difference between the mean duration of the pregnancy depending on whether the mother is married or not? H0: There is no significant difference; marriage has no bearing Ha: There is a significant difference; marriage affects pregnancy duration
inference(y = nc$weeks, x = nc$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 = 386, mean_married = 38.0803, sd_married = 3.4243
## n_not married = 612, mean_not married = 38.4951, sd_not married = 2.5628
## Observed difference between means (married-not married) = -0.4148
##
## H0: mu_married - mu_not married = 0
## HA: mu_married - mu_not married != 0
## Standard error = 0.203
## Test statistic: Z = -2.046
## p-value = 0.0408
There is a significant (p < 0.05) difference in the mean pregnancy duration depending on whether or not the mother is married. Married mothers tend to have slighly shorter pregnancies than do un-married mothers