| Date: | Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:26:58 -0800 |
| Reply-To: | Robin High <robinh@UOREGON.EDU> |
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
| From: | Robin High <robinh@UOREGON.EDU> |
| Subject: | Re: Error bars charts |
|
| In-Reply-To: | A<2c7edd0b-854a-4e52-a1e0-b1ef1050e526@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> |
| Content-Type: | text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Kai,
The issues on making plots with error bars (all too often made as "side
by side sky scrapers with antennas") for two (or more) conditions with
data collected from one group is one that seems rarely understood by
researchers; you will find mean plots with "error bars" placed in all
sorts of journal articles, documents, and presentations from data
collected with repeated measures designs, that is where the same
subjects are measured on two or more different conditions or
measurements taken over time. The fallacy of making such a plot rarely
seems to be understood. They usually do show vertical variability OK,
though you can't use them for comparisons of the "means" through the
error bars across the conditions, since the error bars indicate nothing
about the covariance term (usually positive) present in the formula that
should be _Memorized_ by anyone who conducts repeated measures designs:
VAR(LSMEAN_1 - LSMEAN_2) = VAR(LSMEAN_1) + VAR(LSMEAN_2)
- 2*COVAR(LSMEAN_1,LSMEAN_2)
With between groups designs, the COVAR() term is 0, since data are
assumed to be independent, so an error bar plot with that type of data
does have some interpretive value (with an exception).
The plot that does make sense for difference in means from repeated
measures designs is the new 'diff' plot available in the experimental
GLIMMIX procedure, so I recommend looking into it.
Oh yes, the exception I alluded to above is if you make error bar charts
for between groups designs where the subjects in each group have
multiple observations, the variance of a mean will be underestimated if
you compute it from PROCs MEANS or TABULATE. Repeated measurements that
are 'clustered' indicates you should compute the LSMEANS and standard
errors with PROC MIXED, assigning an appropriate REPEATED or RANDOM
statement to show how the clustering actually inflates the standard
errors of the means.
Robin High
University of Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: SAS(r) Discussion [mailto:SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kai
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 3:05 AM
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Error bars charts
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone can help me, I'm currently conducting a
study employing a within-participants design or a repeated measure
design. I have two conditions which one group of samples have took
part in, i.e., each participant has took part in both conditions.
I'm looking at creating an error bar chart; however I'm not sure what
type of error bar chat would be appropriate for this type of design,
or which indeed would not be appropriate.
My dilemma is, my what seems confusing course material, gives an
example, it says if I had two different samples, i.e., two different
groups, testing one group in one condition and the other group in the
other condition and for example one group gained scores higher from
the other group, This suggests that there is a reliable difference
between the to conditions,
However the difference between the score could be due to sampling
error, i.e. when your 95% confidence interval overlaps on an error bar
chart in SPSS, its likely that both samples are from the sample
population and therefore the difference between the score is due to
sampling error and not a real difference between the two conditions.
Now I understand this to a point insofar that this is a between-
participants design or independent measures design, however, can I
apply this 95% confidence interval error bar chart to my repeated
measure design, my common sense is telling me not because in a
repeated measures design we only have one group, so we are not
equating weather both groups are from the same population and if so,
therefore any difference is due to sampling error we are only have one
group therefore all we have to do is make sure the one group is
representative on the population, err I think....
So to summarize, using a 95% confidence interval bar chart, as in the
example above. When you have two groups and you want to see weather
the difference in the condition that each group went through was not
down to sampling error, i.e., both groups are from the same
population, you use an confidence interval error bar chart and if the,
e.g., lower level of the first tail condition and the upper level of
the second tail condition overlap then this is due to sampling error
and a real difference between the groups,
Can this be applied to a repeated measures design with only one group?
Any help or pointing in the right direction would be greatly
appreciated,
Thanks
Kai
|