Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A reduction in the potential for the occurrence and effect of confounding factors can be obtained by increasing the types and numbers of comparisons performed in an analysis. If measures or manipulations of core constructs are confounded (i.e. operational or procedural confounds exist), subgroup analysis may not reveal problems in the analysis.
For example, if an outdoor experiment were to be conducted to compare how different wing designs of a paper airplane (the independent variable) affect how far it can fly (the dependent variable), one would want to ensure that the experiment is conducted at times when the weather is the same, because one would not want weather to affect the ...
Graphical model: Whereas a mediator is a factor in the causal chain (top), a confounder is a spurious factor incorrectly implying causation (bottom). In statistics, a spurious relationship or spurious correlation [1] [2] is a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are associated but not causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third ...
In the examples listed above, a nuisance variable is a variable that is not the primary focus of the study but can affect the outcomes of the experiment. [3] They are considered potential sources of variability that, if not controlled or accounted for, may confound the interpretation between the independent and dependent variables.
A normal quantile plot for a simulated set of test statistics that have been standardized to be Z-scores under the null hypothesis. The departure of the upper tail of the distribution from the expected trend along the diagonal is due to the presence of substantially more large test statistic values than would be expected if all null hypotheses were true.
One of the best-known examples of Simpson's paradox comes from a study of gender bias among graduate school admissions to University of California, Berkeley.The admission figures for the fall of 1973 showed that men applying were more likely than women to be admitted, and the difference was so large that it was unlikely to be due to chance.
In statistics, Lord's paradox raises the issue of when it is appropriate to control for baseline status. In three papers, Frederic M. Lord gave examples when statisticians could reach different conclusions depending on whether they adjust for pre-existing differences.
For example, suppose a researcher wishes to estimate the causal effect of smoking (X) on general health (Y). [5] Correlation between smoking and health does not imply that smoking causes poor health because other variables, such as depression, may affect both health and smoking, or because health may affect smoking.