Editing Statistics and Statistical Programming (Winter 2017)/Problem Set: Week 5
From CommunityData
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Programming Challenges == | == Programming Challenges == | ||
: '''PC0.''' I've provided the full dataset from which I drew each of your samples in a TSV file in the directory <code>week_05</code> in | : '''PC0.''' I've provided the full dataset from which I drew each of your samples in a TSV file in the directory <code>week_05</code> in class assignment git repository. These are ''tab delimited'', not comma delimited. TSV, is related to CSV and is also a common format. Go ahead and load it into R (''HINT: <code>read.delim()</code>''). Take the mean of the variable <code>x</code> in that dataset. That is the true population mean — the thing we have been creating estimates of in week 2 and week 3. | ||
: '''PC1.''' Go back to the dataset I distributed for [[Statistics and Statistical Programming (Winter 2017)/Problem Set: Week 3|the week 3 problem set]]. You've already computed the mean for this in week 2. You should compute the 95% confidence interval for the variable <code>x</code> in two ways: | : '''PC1.''' Go back to the dataset I distributed for [[Statistics and Statistical Programming (Winter 2017)/Problem Set: Week 3|the week 3 problem set]]. You've already computed the mean for this in week 2. You should compute the 95% confidence interval for the variable <code>x</code> in two ways: | ||
:* (a) By hand using the normal formula for standard error <math>(\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}})</math>. | :* (a) By hand using the normal formula for standard error <math>(\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{n}})</math>. | ||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
: '''Q0.''' Any questions or clarifications from the OpenIntro text or lecture notes? | : '''Q0.''' Any questions or clarifications from the OpenIntro text or lecture notes? | ||
== Questions on the Empirical Paper == | == Questions on the Empirical Paper == | ||
In the Thorn and Connolly paper, we're just going to focus on Experiments #1 and #2. | |||
: | : For experiment 1, lets focus just on the first half of the paragraph: | ||
:* (a) | :* (a) What are the groups in the ANOVA? How are they defined? | ||
:* (b) Clearly State the null hypothesis being tested. | :* (b) Clearly State the null hypothesis being tested. | ||
:* (c) | :* (c) | ||
== Questions on Gelman and Stern Paper == | == Questions on Gelman and Stern Paper == | ||
:''' | :'''Q5:''' First, walk us through the result visualized in Figure 1. Explain and interpret the result for us. Now go back to the blockquote on page 329 and, by referencing the figure, explain why Gelman and Stern think that this is a good example to illustrate their point about the difference between statistically significant versus non-significant. | ||
:''' | :'''Q6:''' Move on to the study about EMF. Walk us through Figure 2. First explain the basic result and then explain why Gelman and Stern thinks that Figure 2b is better than 2a. | ||
:''' | :'''Q7:''' In the paper's abstract Gelman and Stern describe their approach as different from three other problems: that statistical significance, that dichotomization of significant/not-significant encourages dismissing observed differences, and that thresholds are arbitrary. Summarize why these are important issues in your own words (and ideally, with examples) and explain how Gelman's key critique is different. |