< > by /10() 8/11() 1 vs. 2 Z () t 3 Z- t- () 4 () () () 3

Similar documents
( ) t ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) t-

)

(baking powder) 1 ( ) ( ) 1 10g g (two level design, D-optimal) 32 1/2 fraction Two Level Fractional Factorial Design D-Optimal D

102_BS

(Microsoft PowerPoint - 25\272\330\262\316\255p\244\350\252k\257\265\247\3361_Ruth.ppt)

國家圖書館典藏電子全文

Microsoft Word - p11.doc

國家圖書館典藏電子全文

untitled

TA-research-stats.key

Microsoft Word - A doc

11第十一章階層線性模式.DOC

untitled

國家圖書館典藏電子全文

<4D F736F F D20A4BDA640BDC3A5CDAED6A4DFBDD2B57BB0F2A5BBAFE0A44FB4FAC5E72DAC79A6E6AF66BEC7B8D5C344A4BDA FA7B9BD5AAAA9>

<4D F736F F D B14DA7DEB0AAA6D2AAC0A475AE76312DAAC0B77CA475A740ACE3A873A4E8AA6B>

untitled

1

國家圖書館典藏電子全文

統計課程目錄95

影響未婚同居的因素:以大學生為樣本的問卷調查

建築工程品質管理案例研討

<4D F736F F D20BDD7A4E5A4BAA4E5BB50A5D8BFFD2E646F63>

Microsoft PowerPoint - 99教測試題檢討T

[9] R Ã : (1) x 0 R A(x 0 ) = 1; (2) α [0 1] Ã α = {x A(x) α} = [A α A α ]. A(x) Ã. R R. Ã 1 m x m α x m α > 0; α A(x) = 1 x m m x m +

金 鹏 等 体 育 锻 炼 缓 解 公 务 员 心 理 压 力 相 关 量 表 的 编 制 及 常 模 的 建 立 89 此, 本 文 从 探 索 性 研 究 入 手, 对 体 育 锻 炼 缓 解 公 务 员 心 理 压 力 展 开 研 究, 尝 试 编 制 一 个 基 于 本 土 化, 具 有 良

<4D F736F F D2078B1CFD2B5C2DBCEC4A3BAA1B6BDF0D8D1D2AAC2D4A1B7D0BAD0C4CCC0B7BDD6A4D1D0BEBF2E646F63>

UDC Empirical Researches on Pricing of Corporate Bonds with Macro Factors 厦门大学博硕士论文摘要库

: ( ),,

國立中山大學學位論文典藏.PDF

Vol. 15 No. 1 JOURNAL OF HARBIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Feb O21 A

第一章合成.ppt

<4D F736F F F696E74202D20C15AAEC4A6D2AED6BB50C15AAEC4BADEB27A2D2DA578A4A4AF5A5B315D>

untitled

~ 10 2 P Y i t = my i t W Y i t 1000 PY i t Y t i W Y i t t i m Y i t t i 15 ~ 49 1 Y Y Y 15 ~ j j t j t = j P i t i = 15 P n i t n Y

( ) ( ) ( NSC M )

OncidiumGower Ramsey ) 2 1(CK1) 2(CK2) 1(T1) 2(T2) ( ) CK1 43 (A 44.2 ) CK2 66 (A 48.5 ) T1 40 (


Essential procedures of stereological (morphometric( morphometric) ) study / / / / / / /

Settlement Equation " H = CrH 1+ e o log p' o + ( p' p' c o! p' o ) CcH + 1+ e o log p' c + p' f! ( p' p' c c! p' o ) where ΔH = consolidation settlem

基于因子分析的敦煌莫高窟游客满意度研究

PDFᅲᆰᄏ커￷

歯WP02-12-부속물.PDF

基于因子分析法对沪深农业类上市公司财务绩效实证分析

untitled

第 一 节 科 研 设 计 的 主 要 内 容 确 定 研 究 对 象 设 对 照 组 随 机 分 组 确 定 观 察 指 标 2

(Microsoft Word - 11-\261i\256m\253i.doc)

(2005 (2006, (2006 ( , ( ,,,,,, ( (ASFR ASFR : x, B x x, P f x x (1 (2 4,, , 2 1 :, 1 2, 20-29

國立中山大學學位論文典藏.PDF

1 ABSTRACT

汉语口语考试


(D) 比 例 (Ratio) 6. 狂 犬 病 病 毒 是 引 起 狂 犬 病 的 : (A) 充 分 且 必 要 條 件 (B) 充 分 條 件 (C) 必 要 條 件 (D) 以 上 皆 非 7. 某 研 究 指 出, 在 100 位 憂 鬱 症 患 者 中, 血 型 為 O 型 佔 50%,

Corporate Social Responsibility CSR CSR CSR 1 2 ~ CSR 6 CSR 7 CSR 8 CSR 9 10 ~ CSR 14 CSR CSR 2013 A A 23.

spss.doc

% GIS / / Fig. 1 Characteristics of flood disaster variation in suburbs of Shang

18 A B S 17.44±1() ±6.26( ) 54.23±5.5( ) 6.42±1.51() m 30m t α =.05 ( )AB 1 5 (p>.05)( )AB 1 5 (p<.05)( )A (p>.05)( )B (p<.05)( )A B

: 3 ( ) :, 1990 UNDP, Spearman HDI,,, ( ), 1990,,,,,, : 1990 (UNDP), ( Human Development Index, HDI), HDI :, ;, ;, GDP(PPP ) (UNDP, 2004) HDI 1

stfr : stfr stfr/sf stfr stfr/sf stfr stfr/sf stfr stfr/sf SF ZPP Hb Normal IDs IDE IDA 189 stfr ELISA stfr/sf stfr ROC (ROC) 34.8%IDs IDE 1

<4D F736F F D20434D524F B9ABC3F1CAD3C6B5D0C2CEC5B5C4D0CECCACD3EBC4DAC8DDD1D0BEBF>


Microsoft PowerPoint pptx.ppt

<4D F736F F D20AAECB1B4BA43A9CAAF66A6D1A67EB177AACCAAF8B4C1B44EC2E5A4CEA5CEC3C4AABAA778C25AA277A548A4A4B3A1AC59C2E5BEC7A4A4A4DFACB0A8D22E646F6378>

: 29 : n ( ),,. T, T +,. y ij i =, 2,, n, j =, 2,, T, y ij y ij = β + jβ 2 + α i + ɛ ij i =, 2,, n, j =, 2,, T, (.) β, β 2,. jβ 2,. β, β 2, α i i, ɛ i

Microsoft PowerPoint - talk8.ppt

To Construct a Forecasting Model of Unscheduled Emergency Department Revist within72 Hours Student: Fei-Chen LAI Advisor: Prof. Chin-Yin Huang Departm

STEAM STEAM STEAM ( ) STEAM STEAM ( ) 1977 [13] [10] STEM STEM 2. [11] [14] ( )STEAM [15] [16] STEAM [12] ( ) STEAM STEAM [17] STEAM STEAM STEA

Microsoft Word 谢雯雯.doc

: 307, [], [2],,,, [3] (Response Surface Methodology, RSA),,, [4,5] Design-Expert 6.0,,,, [6] VPJ33 ph 3,, ph, OD, Design-Expert 6.0 Box-Behnken, VPJ3

K-means

CMOS线性响应测试

32 醫 學 新 知 (I) (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.35; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.70; p = 0.003)

ii

untitled

運動表現與媒體曝光率關聯性探討-以民生報報導中華職棒為例

elections. In addition, the positive CARs exist during the full event date that indicates the election bull run do happen in Taiwan. When incumbent go

% % 34

H 2 SO ml ml 1. 0 ml C 4. 0 ml - 30 min 490 nm 0 ~ 100 μg /ml Zhao = VρN 100% 1 m V ml ρ g

PowerPoint Presentation

iml88-0v C / 8W T Tube EVM - pplication Notes. IC Description The iml88 is a Three Terminal Current Controller (TTCC) for regulating the current flowi

Stochastic Processes (XI) Hanjun Zhang School of Mathematics and Computational Science, Xiangtan University 508 YiFu Lou talk 06/

Preface This guide is intended to standardize the use of the WeChat brand and ensure the brand's integrity and consistency. The guide applies to all d

窑 374窑 国 际 生 殖 健 康 / 计 划 生 育 杂 志 2013 年 9 月 第 32 卷 第 5 期 JInt Reprod Health 蛐 Fam Plan,September 2013 熏 Vol. 32 熏 No 统 计 学 方 法 数 据 审 核 后 录 入 计

Microsoft PowerPoint - STU_EC_Ch02.ppt

「父母與同儕依附量表」之發展

明新科技大學專題研究計畫成果報告編寫須知

Microsoft Word - ED-774.docx

論文格式

1

iml v C / 0W EVM - pplication Notes. IC Description The iml8683 is a Three Terminal Current Controller (TTCC) for regulating the current flowin

iml v C / 4W Down-Light EVM - pplication Notes. IC Description The iml8683 is a Three Terminal Current Controller (TTCC) for regulating the cur

1208 Chin J Dis Control Prev 2018 Dec2212 gross domestic β 2 β 3 β 4 β 5 product GDP GTWPR geographically and temporally weighted poisson regression G

pc6_內文-4.tpf

Set the Error Covariances of PR and PRO Free Path Diagram Lisrel Output RS SE SS SC MI TV PC TO EF FS End of Problem

: Previous Next First Last Back Forward 1

Microsoft PowerPoint _代工實例-1

Microsoft PowerPoint - ch1_2.ppt

Jul Journal of Chinese Women's Studies No. 4 Ser. No. 148 * CFPS 2010 C A Where does the Ti

66 臺 中 教 育 大 學 學 報 : 數 理 科 技 類 Abstract This study adopts a quasi experiment method to utilize an instructional experiment via frog ecological lessons

Microsoft Word - 荆红卫 板.doc

Transcription:

~CABLE 2006 ~ 2006.08

< > by 2006 8/10() 8/11() 1 vs. 2 Z () t 3 Z- t- () 4 () 5 1 2 () () 3

~CABLE 2006 ~ () 2006.08.10

( 1)

(Statistics) vs. (Biostatistics)

(Descriptive Statistics) (Inferential Statistics)

( )

(variable) Ex.

(nominal variable) (ordinal variable) (discrete variable) (interval variable) (ratio variable) (continuous variable)

(ex. ) ( ) 21 21 (frequency)

(ex. ) ( ) 321 31 ( ) ( ) ( )

1 2 101102 (ex. )

0( 0) (ex. ) 0 40 20

Ex.

vs. (1) (continuous variable) ( ) (ex. n ) (discrete variable) ( ) (ex. 10.2 )

vs. (2) ( ) ( )(ex. )

( vs. p.14)

vs. (Population) (ex. ) (parameter)(ex. N) (Sample) (statistics)(ex. n)

(ex. )

0 (random) Ex. ( 0) Ex.

( p.29 ) 0~9 ( ) (ex. 300 3 )

( ) / K(K ) K 1 K R R, R+K, R+2K,, R+(n- 1)K

( ) (ex. )

(ex. )

(1) ex. ( )

(2) (Probability Proportional to size, PPS ) ( ) Ex. 7~12

(ex. )

Ex.

ex. ( ) ( )

(ex. AIDS )

( 2) (Descriptive Statistics)

Check data, clean data (outlier)

12 101102 ) (ex. 0( 0) (ex. ) 0 40 20

1

2 (Mean) ( ) (Median) ( 2) n X X n i i = = 1 N X N i i = = 1 µ

3 (Maximum) (Minimun) (range)= ex. A 95 5 90 B 60 40 20 A B ( )

4 (Variance) ( ) 2 X µ 2 X X 2 S = ( n 1) ( ) (Standard Deviation) σ = N ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) 2 X µ X X 2 2 σ = σ = = S = N ( n 1) 2

5 (Coefficient of variancec.v.) % σ S µ X %CV ( ) ex.

(frequency) (Mode)

x ( )y (histogram ) (stem-and-leaf plot) (box plot) (outlier) (bar chart, bar graph) x x

(stem) (leaf)

outlier 1.5(IQR) IQR= 1.5(IQR)

1 (Normal Distribution) or or (Gausian shape, symmetric) 50%

2 mean = median = mode

1 (positively skewed) mean > median > mode

2 (negatively skewed) mean < median < mode

3 (bimodal distribution)

( 3) ()

( ) vs. ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) vs. Z-test t-test Paired t-test ANOVA

Z-test vs. t-test Z-test Z X µ Z = 0 t-test σ n t ( 2 2 ) X1 X 2 [( n1 1) s1 + ( n2 1) s2 ] t = s = 1 1 n1 + n2 + n n 1 2 t (n-1) t Z n120 tz 2

vs. H o 1 2 1 2 1 2 ( ) ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) H 1 1 2 ( ) ( ) ( H o ) ( H o ) 1 2 1 2 ( 1 2 1 2 )

p-value vs. -value p : H o : H o 0.05 (5%) p p0.05 H o ( ) 0.10 10% 0.01 1%

Z Z= -2-1 0 1 2 Z= 1.96~-1.96 95%

Paired t-test ( ) A B

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Ex.

vs. 1 1 2 95% (95% Confidence Interval 95% C.I.) 95% Ex. Ho: 1 2 1 2 95% C.I. 0 Ho: 1 2 Ho

ANOVA 1 Analysis of Variance N-way ANOVA N (ex. ) One-way ANOVA ( ) vs. ( ) Z-testt-test ANOVA

ANOVA 2 H o : 1 2 3 4 H 1 : 2 Assumption ANOVA (F-test)

ANOVA 3 (TSS=WSS+BSS) WSS( Within Sum of Square) = n-kk BSS( Between Sum of Square) = k-1 TSS( Total Sum of Square) = n-1 =(n-k)+(k-1)

F-test F=MBSS/MWSS ANOVA 4 MBSS=BSS/(k-1) ( Mean Between Sum of Square) MWSS=WSS/(n-k) ( Mean Within Sum of Square) p0.05

ANOVA ( ) Scheffe s( )Bonferroni LSD( Least Significant Difference method) ( k 1) F k 1, n k, 1 α Scheffe s: t Bonferroni: LSD: tt * α α = k C 2 α n k,1 2

( 4) ()

(binomial variable) (proportional variable) (ex. ) 1(p+q=1=100%) AB

( ) McNemar s test B (cells) 5 ( RC table) Chi- Square test for trend Fisher s Exact test Chi- Square test Proportional Z-test

Proportional Z-test 1 p~ p B 17% B p~ p ~ H 0 : p 1 =p 0 p p ~ 0 p p0 Z = = σ ~ p p0 q0 n 50% 120 80 40 t pq σ p ~ σ p ~

Proportional Z-test 2 ~ p 1, ~ p 2 ( p 1 -p 2 ) B 17%30% B 95% ~ p 1, ~ p 2 (p 1 p 2 ) ( ~ p1 ~ p2 ) µ ( p1 p2 ) H 0 : p 1 =p 2 =p 0 Z = σ ~ ~ ( p p ) 1 2 B 17%30% B

Chi-Square test 1 ( ) (association) A B ex.

Chi-Square test 2 H 0 : X 1 X 2 2 χ ( O E) = E 2 (Observed O ) (Expected E ) 10 (26.67) 90 (73.33) Total 70 (53.33) 130 (146.67) Total 100 200 300 80 E11 = 100 = 26.67 300 220 E12 = 100 = 73.33 300 80/300 80 220

Fisher s Exact test OE ( ) OE ( )( ) 35 30 (146.67) 5 (4.08) 60 53 7 Total 25 23 (53.33) 2 (2.92) Total ( ) ( )!!!!! )! )!( )!( )!( ( )! )!( (!!!!!!! ),,, ( d c b a n d b c a d c b a d b c a n d c d c b a b a C C C P n c a d c c b a a d c b a + + + + = + + + + = = + + + O 11 210 c+d d c n=a+b+c+d b+d a+c Total a+b b a X 2 Total X 1

McNemar s test bc ad H 0 : p=1/2 E 12 =E 21 =(b+c)/2 X 2 a c X 1 b d Total a+b c+d 2 χ ( ) b + c 2 ( b + c) Total a+c b+d n=a+b+c+d b c 1 = ( b + c) Ex. vs. A B vs. ( 1/2 by chance) = b 2 4 1 2 2

Chi-Square test for trend Ex. ( ) vs. ( ) ( 2k table)

( 5) ()

(pearson correlation) (simple linear regression)

(pearson correlation) x 1 x 2 (simple linear regression) x y x y (Scatter plot)

yˆ = 1 β + β x y i = β + β x + ε 0 1 1 0 1 i β 0 β ε 1 i

1 () x y ( r ) x -1~1 y 0 r

2

~ ~

~CABLE 2006 ~ () 2006.08.11

( 1) ()

(multiple linear regression)

xy2

assumption (y) () (mean=0variance= 2 ) 1 >1

y ŷ k ˆ 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 y = β + β x + β x + β x +... + β k x k y y = x 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 k k β + β x + β x + β x +... + β + ε ŷ 100% y

(x) x y (dummy variable) (reference group) y k k-1 ( SAS ) xb(cd ) A y (ex. 0 x y )

Reference Ex. ( ) 3 X 11 X 12 1(0 ) Contrast (Effect) SAS default 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 X 13 0 0 0 1

1 ( ) x x 1 y 1 3 3 2 2 1 0 3 3 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 )... 0 ( )... 1 ( ˆ ˆ ) ( y y... ˆ... ˆ... ˆ β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β = + + + + + + + + + + = + + + + + = + + + + + = + + + + + = k k k k k k k k k k x x x x x x y y x x x x x y x x x x y x x x x y

(Full Model) (Model selection) (Backward selection) (Forward selection) (Stepwise selection)

(r 2 R 2 ) -1r1 0r 2 1 y % x ( ) x r 2 =

(transformation)

( 2) ()

(logistic regression, logit model) (multicategory logistic regression, polytomous logistic regression, polychotomous logit model) (proportional odds logit model)

assumption (y) ABP(A)+P(B)=1

)... ( 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 exp 1 1 ) logit ( log ) 1 log(... ) log( k x k x x x y y y y k k y y P P odds P P x x x x P P β β β β β β β β β β + + + + + = = = = = = + = = = = + + + + + = y

(x) x 1 ( ) e 1 (dummy variable) (reference group) y k k-1 xb(cd ) A ( ) e 1 (ex. 0 x y 1 )

1 e OR )... 0 ( )... 1 ( ) log ( ) log( 0 1 log 0) log( 1) log( ) ( y y... ) log( 1 3 3 2 2 1 0 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β β = = = + + + + + + + + + + = = = = = = = = + + + + + = = = = = = = = = = = = = odds ratio x x x x x x odds ratio odds odds x P P x P P x P P x P P x x x x x P P k k k k x x y y y y y y y y k k y y OR

(Full Model) (Model selection) (Backward selection) (Forward selection) (Stepwise selection)

Concordant pairs( ) (%) C ROC curve Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square test df=2 chi-square distribution (estimated probability) (percentile) 10( ) (discrepancy) Pseudo R 2

(y) baseline-category logit model proportional odds model, cumulative logit model

baseline-category logit model ( ) ( )x P P P P P P P P x x x x x P P x x x x x P P b a b a y y y y y y y y b b k k y y a a k k y y β β α α β α β β β β β β α β β β β β + = = + = + + + + + = + = + + + + + = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 log ) log( ) log(... ) log(... ) log( 0,1,2 y y

proportional odds logit model x x x x x P P x x x x x P P b k k y y a k k y y j j β α β β β β β β α β β β β β π π π π + = + + + + + = + = + + + + + = = + + + + = > > = > = = = =... ) log(... ) log( 0,1,2 y y...... log j) P(Y 1 j) P(Y log j) logit P(Y 3 3 2 2 1 1 02 0&1 2 3 3 2 2 1 1 01 0 1&2 1 1 2

P(Y>j) P(Y>1) P(Y>2) P(Y>3)

1 2 3 4

~ ~

2002/3

(random error)

(systemic error)

(test-retest reliability) (alternate form reliability)

Weakness biologic, psychological and social changes in the respondent or try to be good in the second time Improvement carry out after a long enough period to reduce memory artifacts but promptly enough to reduce the probability of systematic changes. Apply measure instrument at two times for multiple persons compute correlation between the two measures assumes there is no change in the underlying trait between time1 and time2

(quantitative data) Pearson Correlation (categorical data) Spearman Rank Correlation (phi coefficient) SPSS Analysis Correlate Bivariate Pearson Spearman

(split half reliability) Cronbach s s coefficient alpha (( Kuder-Richardson reliability

Weakness They will underestimate reliability if the items within the set are not close replications of each other. Reliability may be overestimated by the internal consistency design if the whole interview is affected by irrelevant global response patterns socially undesirable response biases Improvement The instrument is well design. Apply Includes several items pertaining to a single underlying psychological trait or symptom dimension. The items that relate to the same underlying concept are considered to be replications of each other.

SPSS Analysis Scale Reliability Analysis Model : split half Model : alpha Split half Cronbach s

Cronbach s α = + α = + cov is the average covariance between items var is the average variance between items r is the average correlation between items ( = Ε ) Ε( ) Ε( ) = =

(Intra-rater rater reliability) (Inter-rater rater reliability)

Weakness Insofar as respondent s s idiosyncratic response contribute to unreliability, estimates based on a single interview may underestimate the actual. Improvement well training use video tape Supervision in the process of the collecting data Apply are different observers consistent? can establish this outside of your study in a pilot study can look at percent of agreement (especially with category ratings)

(quantitative data) Intraclass Correlation Reliability (ICR) (categorical data) Agreement, Kappa, Random Error SPSS Analysis Scale Reliability Analysis Statistics Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) Analysis Descriptive Statistics Crosstabs Statistics Kappa

TYPE of RELIABILITY Intraclass Correlation Reliability (ICR) RATERS FEXED or RANDOM VERSION of INTRACLASS CORRELATION PartA Reliability of single rater Nested n subjects rated by k different raters Random ICR(1,1) = BMS - WMS BMS + (k - 1)WMS Subject by rater crossed design Random ICR(2,1) = TMS - EMS TMS + k 1 EMS + k JMS - EMS n (kappa) Subject by rater crossed design Fixed ICR(3,1) = TMS - EMS TMS + (k - 1)EMS (phi or r) PartB Reliability of the average of k ratings Nested: n subjects rated by k different raters Random ICR(1,k) = BMS - WMS BMS Subject by rater cross design Random ICR(2,k) = TMS - EMS TMS + (JMS - EMS) / n Subject by rater crossed design Fixed ICR(3,k) = TMS - EMS TMS α

ICR - F Table Source of Variation Sum of Sq. DF Mean Square F Prob. Between People 2253.5000 9 250.3889 Within People 422.6667 20 21.1333 Between Measures 13.0667 2 6.5333.2871.7538 Residual 409.6000 18 22.7556 Total 2676.1667 29 92.2816 ICR(1,1)=0.77 77%

rater1 total rater2 a b a+b c d c+d total a+c b+d n

Agreement Agreement =(a+d)/n

Kappa = σ = + = ( + )( + ) + ( + )( + ) [ ] = = + + ( )

weight kappa Weight kappa A weighted K can be used when some notion of the seriousness of the rater s s disagreements is available and where the disagreements can be weighted accordingly. = Σ Σ

generalize kappa Generalize kappa A generalization of k to the case where there are more than two diagnostic (nominal) classes and more than two raters. R raters N subjects C classes = = = = =

random error Random error The RE coefficient is recommended in which chance is assumed to operate in a purely random way. = + = + = +

(content validity) (face validity)

(1) (content validity matrix) 1 2 3.. A B C (Principal Component)

(2) (2)

(external) (criterion) (predictive validity)

(predictive validity) (concurrent validity) (postdictive validity) (discriminant validity)

(correlation analysis) (sensitivity) (specificity) Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC)

Positive Negative Total Criterion Present Absent a b c a+c d b+d Total a+b C+d N Sensitivity=a/(a+c) Positive predictive value=a/(a+b) Specificity=d/(b+d) Negative predictive value=d/(c+d) Prevalence=(a+c a+c)/n

ROC SPSS Analysis Graphs ROC curve Coordinate points of the ROC curve Test variable State variable Value of state variable (positive)

ROC analysis Cut off Sensitivity 1 Specificity 2.0000 1.000 1.000 3.5000 1.000.640 4.5000.941.560 5.5000.941.400 6.5000.824.240 7.5000.824.160 8.5000.824.080 9.5000.412.000 10.5000.176.000 11.5000.118.000 13.0000.059.000 5.0000.000.000

(construct validity)

1 (Exploratory factor analysis, EFA)

2 (Confirmatory factor analysis, CFA)

(internal validity) (external validity)

1 vs Paradigm Kuhn Positivism Interpetive Critical 1. 2. 3. 4. v.s 5. ( ) 6. 7. 8. From Neuman1994

2

vs. ( ) Z-test t-test Fisher s Exact test ANOVA a ANOVA b c

< > n [6-18 ] < > n (%)

<t-test> 95% t p <ANOVA> 95% F p O A B AB

< > n (%) X 2 p O A B AB < > 1.00 (p=) 0.86 (p=) 0.43 (p=) 1.00 (p=) 0.89 (p=) 1.00 (p=)

< > (se) p ( O ) A B AB ( ) < > OR 95% C.I. p ( O ) A B AB ( )

< > Y=1 / Y=0 Y=2 / Y=0 Y=3 / Y=0 OR 95% C.I. OR 95% C.I. OR 95% C.I. ( O ) A B AB ( ) < > 1(Y=1 & 2 / Y=0) OR 95% C.I. p 2(Y=2 / Y=0 & 1) ( O ) A B AB ( )

Factor Analysis FA 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis EFAEFA EFA (1) (2)

2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA (1) CFA CFA (2) CFA 3 1 factor loading 1 reference indicator variable 1 0 =

13.4% 7.0% 9.0% 11.5% 14.0% 9.0% 11.5% 14.0% 14.0% 14.0%