Not too long ago, a client asked for help with using Spotlight Analysis to interpret an interaction in a regression model.
Spotlight Analysis? I had never heard of it.
As it turns out, it’s a (snazzy) new name for an old way of interpreting an interaction between a continuous and a categorical grouping variable in a regression model. (more…)
Whenever you run multiple statistical tests on the same set of data, you run into the problem of the Familywise Error Rate. What this means is that the true probability
of a type 1 error somewhere in the family of tests you’re running is actually higher than the alpha=.05 you’re using for any given test.
This is a complicated and controversial issue in statistics — even statisticians argue about whether it’s a problem, when it’s a problem, and what to do about it.
In this webinar, we’ll talk about the meaning and consequences of these issues so you can make informed decisions in your data analysis.
We’ll also go through possible solutions, including post-hoc tests and the false discovery rate.
Note: This training is an exclusive benefit to members of the Statistically Speaking Membership Program and part of the Stat’s Amore Trainings Series. Each Stat’s Amore Training is approximately 90 minutes long.
Karen Grace-Martin helps statistics practitioners gain an intuitive understanding of how statistics is applied to real data in research studies.
She has guided and trained researchers through their statistical analysis for over 15 years as a statistical consultant at Cornell University and through The Analysis Factor. She has master’s degrees in both applied statistics and social psychology and is an expert in SPSS and SAS.
Just head over and sign up for Statistically Speaking. You'll get access to this training webinar, 130+ other stats trainings, a pathway to work through the trainings that you need — plus the expert guidance you need to build statistical skill with live Q&A sessions and an ask-a-mentor forum.Not a Member Yet?
It’s never too early to set yourself up for successful analysis with support and training from expert statisticians.
One of the most confusing things about statistical analysis is the different vocabulary used for the same, or nearly-but-not-quite-the-same, concepts.
Sometimes this happens just because the same analysis was developed separately within different fields and named twice.
So people in different fields use different terms for the same statistical concept. Try to collaborate with a colleague in a different field and you may find yourself awed by the crazy statistics they’re insisting on.
Other times, there is a level of detail that is implied by one term that isn’t true of the wider, more generic term. This level of detail is often about how the role of variables or effects affects the interpretation of output. (more…)
A normal probability plot is extremely useful for testing normality assumptions. It’s more precise than a histogram, which can’t pick up subtle deviations, and doesn’t suffer from too much or too little power, as do tests of normality.
There are two versions of normal probability plots: Q-Q and P-P. I’ll start with the Q-Q. (more…)
In this follow-up to December’s webinar, we’ll finish up our discussion of interactions.
There is something about interactions that is incredibly confusing.
An interaction between two predictor variables means that one predictor variable affects a third variable differently at different values of the other predictor.
How you understand that interaction depends on many things, including:
Sometimes you need to get pretty sophisticated in your coding, in the output you ask for, and in writing out regression equations.
In this webinar, we’ll examine how to put together and break apart output to understand what your interaction is telling you.
Note: This training is an exclusive benefit to members of the Statistically Speaking Membership Program and part of the Stat’s Amore Trainings Series. Each Stat’s Amore Training is approximately 90 minutes long.
Karen Grace-Martin helps statistics practitioners gain an intuitive understanding of how statistics is applied to real data in research studies.
She has guided and trained researchers through their statistical analysis for over 15 years as a statistical consultant at Cornell University and through The Analysis Factor. She has master’s degrees in both applied statistics and social psychology and is an expert in SPSS and SAS.
Just head over and sign up for Statistically Speaking. You'll get access to this training webinar, 130+ other stats trainings, a pathway to work through the trainings that you need — plus the expert guidance you need to build statistical skill with live Q&A sessions and an ask-a-mentor forum.Not a Member Yet?
It’s never too early to set yourself up for successful analysis with support and training from expert statisticians.
There are two oft-cited assumptions for Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), which is used to assess the effect of a categorical independent variable on a numerical dependent variable while controlling for a numerical covariate:
1. The independent variable and the covariate are independent of each other.
2. There is no interaction between independent variable and the covariate.
In a previous post, I showed a detailed example for an observational study where the first assumption is irrelevant, but I have gotten a number of questions about the second.
So what does it mean, and what should you do, if you find an interaction between the categorical IV and the continuous covariate? (more…)