COLLEGE OF PHARMACY

3/F St. Theresas Building,

900 San Marcelino Street,
1000 Ermita, Manila, Philippines
Tel No., 524.2011 loc 390;
Direct Line: 5212621

ADVANCED RESEARCH METHODS LABORATORY

MIDTERM EXAMINATION

General Instructions: You will be working by pair. Submit your answers in the following format:
Long bond paper (8.5 x 13)
Font: Calibri size 11
STATA ouput: Lucida Console size 8 or 9

I. Perform the appropriate statistical analyses for the studies below using the steps in hypothesis testing:
a. State the null and alternative hypothesis (2 points)
b. Level of significance (1 point)
c. Test statistics (1 point)
d. Critical Region (1 point)
e. Computation/STATA Output (4 points)
f. Statistical Decision (2 points)
g. Conclusion (2 points)
h. Multiple Pairwise Comparison (If necessary) (4 points)
i. Check for the assumptions (3 points)

1. McConville et al. (A-12) report the effects of chewing one piece of nicotine gum (containing 2 nicotine) on tic
frequency in patients whose Tourettes disorder was inadequately controlled haloperidol. The following are the tic
frequencies under four conditions:

After eliminating patient effects, can we conclude that the mean number of tics differs among conditions? Let
=0.01

anova tics condition patient

Number of obs = 40 R-squared = 0.8976

Root MSE = 88.3677 Adj R-squared = 0.8521

Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F

-----------+----------------------------------------------------
Model | 1848680.9 12 154056.742 19.73 0.0000
|
condition | 153812.875 3 51270.9583 6.57 0.0018
patient | 1694868.03 9 188318.669 24.12 0.0000
|
Residual | 210838.875 27 7808.84722
-----------+----------------------------------------------------
Total | 2059519.77 39 52808.1994

pwcompare condition, pv mcompare (tukey)

Pairwise comparisons of marginal linear predictions

Page 1 of 7
 Margins : asbalanced

---------------------------
| Number of
| Comparisons
-------------+-------------
condition | 6
---------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Tukey
| Contrast Std. Err. t P>|t|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
condition |
Gum Chewing vs Baseline | -166.3 39.51923 -4.21 0.001
0 - 30 Minutues After End of Chewing vs Baseline | -129.4 39.51923 -3.27 0.014
30 - 60 Minutues After End of Chewing vs Baseline | -111.6 39.51923 -2.82 0.041
0 - 30 Minutues After End of Chewing vs Gum Chewing | 36.9 39.51923 0.93 0.787
30 - 60 Minutues After End of Chewing vs Gum Chewing | 54.7 39.51923 1.38 0.520
30 - 60 Minutues After End of Chewing vs 0 - 30 Minutues After End of Chewing | 17.8 39.51923 0.45 0.969
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

swilk resid

Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data

Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z

-------------+--------------------------------------------------
resid | 40 0.97065 1.160 0.312 0.37737

. hettest resid

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: resid

chi2(1) = 0.30
Prob > chi2 = 0.5852

2. Starch et al. (A-18) wanted to show the effectiveness of a central four-quadrant sleeve and screw in anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction. The researchers performed a series of reconstructions on eight cadaveric knees. The
following table shows the loads (in newtons) required to achieve different graft laxities (mm) for seven specimens
(data not available for one specimen) using five different load weights. Graft laxity is the separation (in mm) of the
femur and the tibia at the points of graft fixation.

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that different loads are required to produce different levels of graft laxity?
Let =0.05.

anova graft_laxities loads specimen, repeated(loads)

Number of obs = 35 R-squared = 0.9471

Root MSE = 22.1462 Adj R-squared = 0.9251

Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F

-----------+----------------------------------------------------
Model | 210843.098 10 21084.3098 42.99 0.0000
|
loads | 14891.8854 4 3722.97136 7.59 0.0004
specimen | 195951.212 6 32658.5354 66.59 0.0000
|
Residual | 11770.8668 24 490.452783
-----------+----------------------------------------------------
Total | 222613.965 34 6547.46955

Page 2 of 7
 Between-subjects error term: specimen
Levels: 7 (6 df)
Lowest b.s.e. variable: specimen

Repeated variable: loads

Huynh-Feldt epsilon = 0.3070
Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon = 0.2847
Box's conservative epsilon = 0.2500

------------ Prob > F ------------

Source | df F Regular H-F G-G Box
-----------+----------------------------------------------------
loads | 4 7.59 0.0004 0.0234 0.0268 0.0331
Residual | 24
----------------------------------------------------------------

pwcompare loads, pv mcompare (tukey)

Pairwise comparisons of marginal linear predictions

Margins : asbalanced

---------------------------
| Number of
| Comparisons
-------------+-------------
loads | 10
---------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------
| Tukey
| Contrast Std. Err. t P>|t|
-------------+---------------------------------------
loads |
2 N vs 1 N | 22.55715 11.83763 1.91 0.341
3 N vs 1 N | 35.64286 11.83763 3.01 0.043
4 N vs 1 N | 51.95714 11.83763 4.39 0.002
5 N vs 1 N | 56.74285 11.83763 4.79 0.001
3 N vs 2 N | 13.08571 11.83763 1.11 0.802
4 N vs 2 N | 29.4 11.83763 2.48 0.128
5 N vs 2 N | 34.18571 11.83763 2.89 0.057
4 N vs 3 N | 16.31429 11.83763 1.38 0.647
5 N vs 3 N | 21.1 11.83763 1.78 0.406
5 N vs 4 N | 4.785712 11.83763 0.40 0.994
-----------------------------------------------------

swilk resid

Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data

Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z

-------------+--------------------------------------------------
resid | 35 0.97270 0.974 -0.054 0.52159

. hettest resid

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: resid

chi2(1) = 0.14
Prob > chi2 = 0.7105

3. In a study of length of time spent on individual home visits by public health nurses, data were reported on length of
home visit, in minutes, by a sample of 80 nurses. A record was made also of each nurses age and the type of illness
of each patient visited. The researchers wished to obtain from their investigation answers to the following questions:
1. Does the mean length of home visit differ among different age groups of nurses?
2. Does the type of patient affect the mean length of home visit?
3. Is there interaction between nurses age and type of patient?

Page 3 of 7
anova length_of_visit age_group type_of_patient age_group#type_of_patient
Number of obs = 80 R-squared = 0.8364
Root MSE = 3.83161 Adj R-squared = 0.7980
Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Model | 4801.95 15 320.13 21.81 0.0000
|
age_group | 1201.05 3 400.35 27.27 0.0000
type_of_p~t | 2992.45 3 997.483333 67.94 0.0000
age_group#type_of_p~t | 608.45 9 67.6055556 4.60 0.0001
|
Residual | 939.6 64 14.68125
----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Total | 5741.55 79 72.6778481

swilk resid
Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data
Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z
-------------+--------------------------------------------------
resid | 80 0.95695 2.955 2.374 0.00880
. hettest resid
Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity
Ho: Constant variance
Variables: resid
chi2(1) = 26.39
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Adjusted Predictions of type_of_patient#age_group with 95% CIs

50
40
30
20

Cardiac Cancer C.V.A. Tuberculosis

type_of_patient

20 to 29 30 to 39
40 to 49 50 and over

Page 4 of 7
 Adjusted Predictions of age_group#type_of_patient with 95% CIs
50
40
30
20

20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 and over
age_group

Cardiac Cancer
C.V.A. Tuberculosis

4. Thrombocytopaenia is a condition of abnormally low platelets that often occurs during necrotizing enterocolitis
(NEC)a serious illness in infants that can cause tissue damage to the intestines. Ragazzi et al. (A-8) investigated
differences in the log10 of platelet counts in 178 infants with NEC. Patients were grouped into four categories of NEC
status. Group 0 referred to infants with no gangrene, group 1 referred to subjects in whom gangrene was limited to
a single intestinal segment, group 2 referred to patients with two or more intestinal segments of gangrene, and group
3 referred to patients with the majority of small and large bowel involved. The following table gives the log10 platelet
counts for these subjects.

anova platelet_count gangrene_grouping

Number of obs = 178 R-squared = 0.0785

Root MSE = .421699 Adj R-squared = 0.0627

Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F

------------+----------------------------------------------------
Model | 2.63757327 3 .87919109 4.94 0.0026
|
gangrene_~g | 2.63757327 3 .87919109 4.94 0.0026
|
Residual | 30.9424376 174 .177830101
------------+----------------------------------------------------
Total | 33.5800109 177 .189717576

. pwcompare gangrene_grouping, pv mcompare (bonferroni)

Pairwise comparisons of marginal linear predictions

Margins : asbalanced

Page 5 of 7
--------------------------------
| Number of
| Comparisons
------------------+-------------
gangrene_grouping | 6
--------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bonferroni
| Contrast Std. Err. t P>|t|
--------------------------------------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
gangrene_grouping |
Single intestinal segment vs No Gangrene | -.1016517 .0926383 -1.10 1.000
2 or more intestinal segments vs No Gangrene | -.1781703 .0771189 -2.31 0.132
Majority of small and large bowel vs No Gangrene | -.3544666 .0961274 -3.69 0.002
2 or more intestinal segments vs Single intestinal segment | -.0765185 .0960251 -0.80 1.000
Majority of small and large bowel vs Single intestinal segment | -.2528148 .1118659 -2.26 0.150
Majority of small and large bowel vs 2 or more intestinal segments | -.1762963 .0993954 -1.77 0.467
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. predict predict
(option xb assumed; fitted values)

. predict resid, resid

. swilk resid

Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data

Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z

-------------+--------------------------------------------------
resid | 178 0.96414 4.835 3.604 0.00016

. hettest resid

Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity

Ho: Constant variance
Variables: resid

chi2(1) = 46.28
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

5. Yucha et al. (A-22) conducted a study to determine if nursing students who were assigned to a home hospital (HH)
experience differed from those traditionally placed (TP) in hospitals throughout their nursing training. A small subset
of data is provided in the table below. In this data set, hospital placement is the between-subjects variable. Anxiety,
as measured by Spielbergers State Anxiety Scale (where higher scores suggest higher levels of anxiety), is the within-
subjects variable and is provided at four points in time during nursing training. Is there evidence that anxiety level
changed through time for these nursing students? Is there a difference in anxiety between those in a home hospital
placement versus traditional placement? Is there significant interaction between placement type and anxiety? Let
=0.05

anova anxiety_rate time_anxiety/ subject|time_anxiety placement_type/ subject|placement_type

time_anxiety#placement_type subject, repeated(time_anxiety)
Number of obs = 80 R-squared = 0.8356
Root MSE = 8.75275 Adj R-squared = 0.5190

Page 6 of 7
 Source | Partial SS df MS F Prob > F
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Model | 10512.9 52 202.171154 2.64 0.0039
|
time_anxi~y | 591.4375 3 197.145833 3.78 0.0218
subject|time_anxi~y | 1406.6875 27 52.099537
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
placement~e | 32.5125 1 32.5125 0.08 0.7859
subject|placement~e | 3737.3625 9 415.2625
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
time_anxi~y#placement~e | 685.1375 3 228.379167 2.98 0.0489
subject | 4059.7625 9 451.084722 5.89 0.0002
|
Residual | 2068.4875 27 76.6106481
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Total | 12581.3875 79 159.25807

Between-subjects error term: subject|placement~e

Levels: 20 (9 df)
Lowest b.s.e. variable: subject
Covariance pooled over: placement~e (for repeated variable)
Repeated variable: time_anxi~y
Huynh-Feldt epsilon = 2.3929
*Huynh-Feldt epsilon reset to 1.0000
Greenhouse-Geisser epsilon = 0.8169
Box's conservative epsilon = 0.3333
------------ Prob > F ------------
Source | df F Regular H-F G-G Box
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
time_anxi~y | 3 3.78 0.0218 0.0218 0.0314 0.0836
subject|time_anxi~y | 27
------------------------+----------------------------------------------------
time_anxi~y#placement~e | 3 2.98 0.0489 0.0489 0.0623 0.1183
Residual | 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. predict predict
(option xb assumed; fitted values)
. predict resid, resid
. swilk resid
Shapiro-Wilk W test for normal data
Variable | Obs W V z Prob>z
-------------+--------------------------------------------------
resid | 80 0.98899 0.755 -0.615 0.73060
. hettest resid
Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity
Ho: Constant variance
Variables: resid
chi2(1) = 0.00
Prob > chi2 = 1.0000

Predictive Margins of time_anxiety#placement_type with 95% CIs

60
55
50
45
40
35

Anxiety 1 Anxiety 2 Anxiety 3 Anxiety 4

time_anxiety

HH TP

---------------------------------END OF EXAM-------------------------------

Page 7 of 7