Download at this link - Sportscience

Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation
important
What is significant for the athlete, the statistician and team doctor?
Will Hopkins will@clear.net.nz sportsci.org/will
What is a Statistic?
 Simple, effect, and inferential statistics.
Making Clinical and Non-clinical Inferences
 Sampling variation; true effects; confidence limits; null-hypothesis
significance test; magnitude-based inference; individual
differences and responses.
Clinically Important Effects
 For differences and changes in means; correlations; slopes or
gradients; ratios of proportions, risks, odds, hazards, counts.
Monitoring Individual Athletes
 Subjective and objective assessments; error of measurement.
What is a Statistic?
 Definition: a number summarizing an aspect of many numbers.
 Examples: mean, correlation, confidence limit…
 If the many numbers all represent different values of the same kind
of thing, we call the numbers values of a numeric variable.
• Example: 57, 73, 61, 60 kg are values of the variable body mass.
• Values of a variable all have the same units.
 A nominal or grouping variable has levels or labels rather than
numeric values.
• Example: union, league, touch… are levels of the variable rugby.
 Utility: a statistic usually represents the big picture or some other
important aspect of the original numbers.
 The aspect is often not obvious in the original numbers.
 One number is better than many.
• Most people hate numbers. The fewer, the better!
 Simple statistic: an aspect of a set of values of one variable.
 Sample size (n): the number of values.
 Mean: the average value or center of the values.
 Standard deviation (SD): the average scatter around the mean.
• Used to evaluate magnitudes of differences in means.
 Standard error of the mean (SD/n): the expected variation in the
mean with resampling.
• A tricky statistical dinosaur. Avoid!
• Convert back to the SD when you see it.
 Quantiles (median, tertiles, quartiles, quintiles…): values that divide
the ranked set up into 2, 3, 4, 5… equal-sized subsets.
• Used when the set is skewed by large values (e.g., salaries).
• Also used to compare subgroups. Example: systolic pressure in the
quintile of lowest physical activity vs each quintile of higher activity.
 Proportion or risk: the number of "events" (e.g., injured players)
divided by the number of "trials" (total number of players).
• Often expressed as a percent (proportion×100).
 Effect statistic: a relationship between a predictor or
independent variable and a dependent or outcome variable.
 Difference (or change) in mean: the predictor is a grouping variable
and the dependent is numeric.
 Slope (or gradient): the difference or change in the mean per
difference in a numeric predictor.
 Correlation coefficient: another form of the slope.
 Ratio of proportions, risks, odds or hazards: statistics for comparing
the occurrence (presence or absence) of something in two groups.
 Ratio of counts: statistics for comparing counts or occurrences of
something in two groups.
 Other variables can be included in the analysis as covariates.
• Moderators are interacted with the predictor to estimate how the
effect differs between subjects.
• Mediators are added to adjust for effects of subject characteristics,
which means: "for subjects of the same age…, the effect was…".
Such adjustment also deals with potential confounding (by age…).
 Inferential statistic: an aspect of the "true" value of a simple or
effect statistic derived from a sample.
 Confidence interval or limits: the likely range of the true value.
 P value: provides evidence about the zero or null value of an effect.
 Chance of benefit, risk of harm: provide evidence about the true
value for making clinical decisions.
 T, F, chi-squared statistics: "test" statistics used to get the above.
• Only the statistician needs to know about these.
• They shouldn’t be shown in publications.
Making Clinical Inferences (Decisions or Conclusions)
c Every sample gives a different value for a statistic, owing to
sampling variation.
 So, the value of a sample statistic is only an estimate of the true
(right, real, actual, very large sample, or population) value.
 But people want to make an inference about the true value.
 The best inferential statistic for this purpose is the confidence
interval: the range within which the true value is likely to fall.
 "Likely" is usually 95%, so there is a 95% chance the true value is
included in the confidence interval (and a 5% chance it is not).
 Confidence limits are the lower and upper ends of the interval.
 The limits represent how small and how large the effect "could" be.
 All effects should be shown with a confidence interval or limits.
 Example: the dietary treatment produced an average weight loss of
3.2 kg (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 4.8 kg).
• The confidence interval is NOT a range of individual responses!
 But confidence limits alone don't provide a clinical inference.
 Statistical significance is the traditional way to make inferences.
 Also known as the null-hypothesis significance test.
 The inference is all about whether the effect could be zero or "null".
 If the 95% confidence interval includes zero, the effect "could be
zero". The effect is "statistically non-significant (at the 5% level)":
zero or null
negative
95% confidence
interval
Researchers using p values
should show exact values.
positive
statistically non-significant (p=0.31)
statistically significant (p=0.02)
statistically significant (p=0.003)
value of effect statistic (e.g., change in weight)
 If the confidence interval does not include zero, the effect "couldn't
be zero". The effect is "statistically significant (at the 5% level)".
 Stats packages calculate a probability or p value for deciding
whether an effect is significant.
• p>0.05 means non-significant; p<0.05 means significant.
 The exact definition of the p value is hard to understand.
• Useful interpretation: half the p value is the probability the true effect
is negative when the sample effect is positive (and vice versa).
 People usually interpret non-significant as "no real effect" and
significant as "a real effect".
 These interpretations apply only if the study was done with the right
sample size.
 Even then they are misleading: they don't convey the uncertainty.
 And you hardly ever know if the sample size is right.
 Attempts to address this problem with post-hoc power calculations
are rare, generally wrong, and too hard to understand.
 So the only safe interpretation is whether the effect could be zero.
 But the issue for the practitioner is not whether the effect could be
zero, but whether the effect could be important.
• Important has two meanings: beneficial and harmful.
 The confidence interval addresses this issue, when clinically
important values for benefit and harm are taken into account.
 Clinical inferences with the confidence interval
 The smallest clinically important effects define values of the effect
that are beneficial, harmful and trivial.
• Smallest effects for benefit and harm are equal and opposite.
 Infer (decide) the outcome from the confidence interval, as follows:
smallest clinically
harmful effect
smallest clinically
beneficial effect
P values fail here.
Clinical
harmful trivial beneficial decision
Clear: use it.
Clear: use it.
Clear: use it. But p>0.05!
Clear: depends.
Clear: don't use it. But p<0.05!
Clear: don't use it.
Clear: don't use it.
Unclear: more data needed.
value of effect statistic (e.g., change in weight)
 This approach eliminates statistical significance.
 The only issue is what level to make the confidence interval.
 To be careful about avoiding harm, you can make a conservative
99% confidence interval on the harm side.
 And to use effects only when there is a reasonable chance of
benefit. you can make a 50% interval on the benefit side.
 But that's hard to understand. Consider this equivalent approach…
 Clinical inferences with probabilities of benefit and harm.
 The uncertainty in an effect can be expressed as chances that the
true effect is beneficial and the risk that it is actually harmful.
 You would decide to use an effect with a reasonable chance of
benefit, provided it had a sufficiently low risk of harm.
 I have opted for possibly beneficial (>25% chance of benefit) and
most unlikely harmful (<0.5% chance of harm).
 An effect with >25% chance of benefit and >0.5% risk of harm is
therefore unclear. You'd like to use it, but you daren't.
• Everything else is either clearly useful or clearly not worth using.
 If the chance of benefit is high (e.g., 80%), you could accept a
higher risk of harm (e.g., 5%).
• This less conservative approach has been formalized using a
threshold odds ratio of 66 (odds of benefit to odds of harm).
 When an effect has no obvious benefit or harm (e.g., a comparison
of males and females), the inference is only about whether the
effect could be substantially positive or negative.
• For such non-clinical inferences, use a symmetrical confidence
interval, usually 90% or 99%, to decide whether the effect is clear.
• Equivalently, one or other of the chances of being substantially
positive or negative has to be <5% for the effect to be clear ("a clear
non-clinical effect can't be substantially positive and negative").
 Ways to report inferences for clear effects: possibly small benefit,
likely moderately harmful, a large difference (clear at 99% level), a
trivial-moderate increase [the lower and upper confidence limits]…
• Whatever, researchers should make a magnitude-based
inference by showing confidence limits and interpreting the
uncertainty in a (clinically) relevant way readers can understand.
 A caution about making an inference…
 Whatever method you use, the inference is about the one and only
mean effect in the population.
 The confidence interval represents the uncertainty in the true effect,
not a range of individual differences or individual responses.
• For example, with a large-enough sample size, a treatment could be
clearly beneficial (a mean beneficial effect with a narrow confidence
interval), yet the treatment could be harmful for a substantial
proportion of the population.
 Individual differences between groups and individual responses to a
treatment are best summarized with a standard deviation to go with
the mean effect.
• The mean effect and the SD both need confidence limits.
 Individual differences between groups and individual responses to a
treatment may be accounted for by including subject characteristics
as modifying covariates in the analysis.
 Researchers generally neglect this important issue.
Clinically Important Magnitudes of Effects
 Researchers and practitioners need to know about clinically
important magnitudes to interpret research findings.
 Researchers need the smallest clinically important magnitude of
an effect statistic to estimate sample size for a study.
 For those who use the null-hypothesis significance test, the right
sample size has 80% power (80% chance of statistical significance,
p<0.05) if the true effect has the smallest important value.
 For those who use clinical magnitude-based inference, the right
sample size gives a 0.5% risk of harm and a 25% chance of benefit
if the true effect has the smallest important beneficial value.
 Practitioners need to know about clinically important magnitudes
to monitor their athletes or patients.
 So the next few slides are all about values for various
magnitudes of various effect statistics.
Differences or Changes in the Mean
 The most common effect statistic, for numbers
with decimals (continuous variables).
 Difference when comparing
different groups, e.g., patients vs healthy.
 In population-health studies, groups are often
subdivided into quartiles or quintiles (e.g., of age).
 Change when tracking the same subjects.
 Difference in the changes in controlled trials.
 The between-subject standard deviation
provides default thresholds for important
differences and changes.
Strength
patients healthy
Data are means & SD.
Strength
 You think about the effect (mean) in terms of a
pre post1 post2
fraction or multiple of the SD (mean/SD).
Trial
Data are means & SD.
 The effect is said to be standardized.
 The smallest important effect is ±0.20 (±0.20 of an SD).
 Example: the effect of a treatment on strength
Trivial effect (0.1x SD)
post
pre
Very large effect (3.0x SD)
post
pre
strength
 Interpretation of
standardized
difference or
change in means:
Complete scale:
trivial
small
moderate
large
very large
extremely large
strength
Cohen
<0.2
0.2-0.5
0.5-0.8
>0.8
?
?
Hopkins
<0.2
0.2-0.6
0.6-1.2
1.2-2.0
2.0-4.0
>4.0
trivial 0.2 small 0.6 moderate 1.2 large 2.0 very large 4.0 ext. large
 Cautions with standardizing
 Standardizing works only when the SD comes from a sample that
is representative of a well-defined population.
• The resulting magnitude applies only to that population.
 In a controlled trial, use the baseline (pre) SD, never the SD of
change scores.
 Beware of authors who show standard errors of the mean (SEM)
rather than standard deviations (SD).
• SEM = SD/(sample size), so SEMs on graphs make effects look a
lot bigger than they really are.
• Very rarely, overlap of SEM of two groups indicates that the
difference between the means is not statistically significant.
• But you won't know when that applies, and you're not using or
trusting statistical significance anymore anyway, right?
 Standardization may not be best for effects on means of some
special variables: visual-analog scales, Likert scales, solo athletic
performance…
 Visual-analog scales
 The respondents indicate a perception on a line like this:
Rate your pain by placing a mark on this scale:
none
unbearable
 Score the response as percent of the length of the line.
 Magnitude thresholds: 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% for small,
moderate, large, very large, extremely large differences or changes.

 Likert scales
 These are used for responses to questions like this:
Over the last four weeks, how often did you train in a gym?
not at all once only 2-3 times once a week
 twice or more a week
 Most Likert-type questions have four to seven choices.
 Code them as integers (1, 2, 3, 4, 5…) and analyze as numerics.
 Magnitude thresholds are up for debate.
• If you use the thresholds of the visual-analog scale as a guide, the
threshold for a 6-pt scale would be ~0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5.
 Solo athletic performance
 For fitness tests and performance indicators of team-sport athletes,
use standardization.
 But for top solo athletes, an enhancement that results in one extra
medal per 10 competitions is the smallest important effect.
• The within-athlete variability that athletes show from one
competition to the next determines this effect. Here's why…
• Owing to this variability, each of the top athletes has a good chance
of winning at each competition:
Race 1
Race 2
Race 3
 Your athlete needs an enhancement that overcomes this variability
to give her or him a bigger chance of a medal.
 Simulations show an enhancement
of 0.3 of an athlete's typical variability
from competition to competition gives
one extra win every 10 competitions.
• Example: if the variability is an SD
(coefficient of variation) of 1%, the
smallest important enhancement is 0.3%.
• In some early publications I have mistakenly referred to 0.5 of the
variability as the smallest effect.
 Small, moderate, large, very large and extremely large effects result
in an extra 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 medals in every 10 competitions.
 The corresponding enhancements as factors of the variability are:
trivial 0.3 small 0.9 moderate 1.6 large 2.5 very large 4.0 ext. large
 Beware: smallest effect on athletic performance in performance
tests depends on method of measurement, because…
 A percent change in an athlete's ability to output power results in
different percent changes in performance in different tests.
 These differences are due to the power-duration relationship for
performance and the power-speed relationship for different modes
of exercise.
 Example: a 1% change in endurance power output produces the
following changes…
• 1% in running time-trial speed or time;
• ~0.4% in road-cycling time-trial time;
• 0.3% in rowing-ergometer time-trial time;
• ~15% in time to exhaustion in a constant-power test.
• A hard-to-interpret change in any test following a fatiguing pre-load.
(But such tests can be interpreted for cycling road races: see
Bonetti and Hopkins, Sportscience 14, 63-70, 2010.)
Slope (or Gradient)
Physical activity
 Used when the predictor and dependent are
both numeric and a straight line fits the trend.
 The unit of the predictor is arbitrary.
 Example: a 2% per year decline in activity
2 SD
seems trivial…
yet 20% per decade seems large.
Age
 So it's best to express a slope as the
difference in the dependent per two SDs of predictor.
• It gives the difference in the dependent (physical activity) between
a typically low and high subject.
• The SD for standardizing the resulting effect is the standard error of
the estimate (the scatter about the line).
Correlation Coefficient
 Closely related to the slope, this represents the overall linearity in
a scatterplot. Examples:
r = 0.00
r = 0.10
r = 0.30
r = 0.50
r = 0.70
r = 0.90
r = 1.00
 Negative values represent negative slopes.
 The value is unaffected by the scaling of the two variables or by
the sample size.
 And it's much easier to calculate than a slope.
 But a properly calculated slope is easier to interpret clinically.
 Smallest important correlation is ±0.1. Complete scale:
trivial 0.1 low 0.3 moderate 0.5 high 0.7 very high 0.9 ext. high
Differences and Ratios of Proportions, Risks, Odds, Hazards
 Example: percent of male and female players injured at all
in a season of touch rugby.
Proportion
injured (%)
 Risk difference or proportion difference
100
 A common measure.
a=
Example: a - b = 75% - 36% = 39%.
75%
 Problem: the sense of magnitude of
b=
a given difference depends on how big
36%
0
the proportions are.
male female
Sex
• Example: for the same 10% difference,
90% vs 80% doesn't seem big, but…
11% vs 1% can be interpreted as a huge "difference" (11x the risk).
 So there is no scale of magnitudes for a risk or proportion difference.
 And analyses (models) don't work properly with proportions.
• We have to use odds or hazards instead of proportions. Stay tuned.
 Number needed to treat (NNT) = 100/(risk difference (%)).
 The number you would have to treat or sample for one subject to
have an outcome attributable to the effect.
• Example: one male in 2.6 (=1/0.39) is injured because he’s a male.
 Has been promoted in some clinical journals, but not widely used.
 Hard to analyze properly, and problems with its confidence limits.
 Avoid!
Proportion
 Risk ratio (relative risk) or proportion ratio
injured (%)
100
 Another common measure.
a=
Example: a/b = 75/36 = 2.1, which means
75%
males are "2.1 times more likely" to be injured,
b=
36%
or "a 110% increase in risk" of injury for males.
0
male female
 Problem: if it's a time dependent measure,
Sex
the risk ratio changes.
• If you wait long enough, everyone gets affected, so risk ratio = 1.00.
 But it works for rare time-dependent risks and for time-independent
classifications (e.g., proportion playing a sport).
 Hence we need values for the smallest and other important ratios for
risks and proportions.
 The smallest ratio is when one event or case in every 10 is due to
the effect.
• Example: one in 10 injuries is due to being male.
• That is, for every 10 injured males, there are 9 injured females.
• If there are N males and N females (injured and uninjured), the injury
risks are 10/N and 9/N, and the risk ratio = (10/N)/(9/N) = 10/9.
 For moderate, large, very large and extremely large ratios, for every
10 injured males, there are 7, 5, 3 and 1 injured females.
• Corresponding risk ratios are 10/7, 10/5, 10/3 and 10/1.
 Hence this scale for proportion ratio and low-risk ratio:
trivial 1.11 small 1.43 moderate 2.0 large 3.3 very large 10 ext. large
• and the inverses for reductions in proportions: 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1.
 But there is still the problem of analyzing proportions properly.
• Two solutions: hazards instead of risks; odds instead of proportions.
 Hazard ratio for time-dependent events.
Proportion
injured (%)
 To understand hazards, consider the
100
increase in proportion or risk with time.
males
 The hazard is the tiny proportion
females
that gets affected per a tiny interval of time.
 Example:
hazard for males = a = 0.28% per day,
0
hazard for females = b = 0.11% per day.
Time (months)
So hazard ratio = a/b = 0.28/0.11 = 2.5.
• That is, males are 2.5x more likely to get injured
a
per unit time, whatever the (small) unit of time.
 So you could call it the "right-now risk ratio".
b
 It's also known as incidence rate ratio,
1 day
which is the ratio of the slopes.
 It can also be interpreted as the ratio of the times taken for the
same proportion to get affected in two groups.
• Example: females take 2.5x as long to get injured as males.
 Hazard ratios work over long periods, when a substantial proportion
of males or females is injured, and the observed risk ratio drops
below the initial hazard ratio.
100
males
• Example: at 5 weeks,
Proportion
injured (%)
a
the risk ratio = a/b = 75/36 = 2.1.
females
 But the hazard ratio for those still
b
uninjured is usually assumed to stay the same,
0
even if the hazards change with time.
Time (months)
• Example: the risk of injury might increase later
in the season for both sexes, but the right-now risk ratio for new
injuries (the hazard ratio) doesn't change. A big plus!
 And hazards and hazard ratios can be modeled (analyzed)!
 Magnitude thresholds must be the same as for the proportion ratio,
even for frequent events, because such events start off rare.
 Hence this scale for the hazard ratio:
trivial 1.11 small 1.43 moderate 2.0 large 3.3 very large 10 ext. large
• and the inverses 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1.
 Odds ratio for time-independent classifications.
 Classifications refer to prevalence; risks refer to incidence.
 Odds are the awkward but only way to model classifications.
Proportion
 Example: proportions of boys and girls
playing (%)
playing a sport.
100
c=
• Odds of a boy playing = a/c = 75/25.
25% d =
a = 64%
• Odds of a girl playing = b/d = 36/64.
75%
• Odds ratio = (75/25)/(36/64) = 5.3.
b=
36%
 Interpret the ratio as "…times more likely"
0
boys girls
only when the proportions in both groups
Sex
are small (<10%).
• The odds ratio is then approximately equal to the proportion ratio.
 To assess magnitude, authors should convert the odds ratio and its
confidence limits to the proportion ratio and its confidence limits.
• Unfortunately they often just leave effects as odds ratios.
Ratio of Counts
 Example: 93 vs 69 injuries per 1000 player-hours of match play in
sport A vs sport B.
 The effect is expressed as a ratio: 93/69 = 1.35x more injuries.
 Can also be expressed as 35% more injuries.
 The scale of magnitudes is the same as for ratio of proportions:
trivial 1.11 small 1.43 moderate 2.0 large 3.3 very large 10 ext. large
 and the inverses 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1.
––––––––––
 Effects of numeric linear predictors (slopes) for ratio outcomes are
expressed as risk, odds, hazard or count ratios per unit of the
predictor and evaluated as the effect per 2 SD of the predictor.
Modeling Effects
 Estimates and inferential statistics for mean effects and slopes
come from various kinds of general linear model…
 t tests, simple and multiple linear regression, ANOVA…
 Use mixed linear models for repeated measures and clustering.
 Testing for normality is pointless, but uniformity is the real issue.
• Many effects are more uniform when estimated as percents or ratios
via analysis of the log-transformed dependent variable.
 Bootstrapping of confidence limits works with difficult data.
 Ratios of odds, hazards and counts need various kinds of
generalized linear model…
 All include log transformation to estimate ratios.
 Logistic (log-odds) regression for odds, log-hazard and Cox
regression for hazards, Poisson regression for counts.
 And don't forget that covariates in all these models estimate and
adjust for effects of moderators and mediators or confounders.
Monitoring Individual Athletes
 It’s all about a substantial change since the last assessment.
 The subjective assessments (perceptions) of the athlete, coach,
and support personnel provide important evidence.
 One-off assessments often differ between individual practitioners,
but assessments of change usually have high validity.
 Objective assessments of change with an instrument or test are
contaminated with error or "noise".
 The noise is represented by the standard deviation of repeated
measurements, the standard (or typical) error of measurement.
 Think of ± the error as the equivalent of confidence limits for the
athlete's true change.
 Take into account clinically or practically important changes.
• Wow, you've made a moderate improvement!
• No real change either way. [A good instrument needed for this.]
• Uh… unclear whether you’re getting better or worse.
Summary
 Inferential statistics are used to make conclusions about the true
value of a simple or effect statistic derived from a sample.
 The inference from a null-hypothesis significance test is about
whether the true value of an effect statistic could be null (zero).
 Magnitude-based inference addresses the issue of whether the true
value could be important (beneficial and harmful, or substantial).
 Effect magnitudes have key roles in research and practice.
 Effects for continuous dependents are mean differences, slopes
(expressed per 2 SD of the predictor), and correlations.
 Thresholds for small, moderate, large, very large and extremely
large standardized mean differences: 0.20, 0.60, 1.2, 2.0, 4.0.
 Thresholds for correlations: 0.10, 0.30, 0.50, 0.70, 0.90.
 Magnitude thresholds for ratios of proportions, hazards, counts:
1.11, 1.43, 2.0, 3.3, 10 and their inverses 0.9, 0.7, 0.5, 0.3, 0.1.
 Take noise and thresholds into account when monitoring athletes.