Non Overlapping Error Bars
Contents |
in a publication or presentation, you may be tempted to draw conclusions about the statistical significance of differences between group means by looking at whether the error bars overlap. Let's look at two contrasting examples. What
How To Interpret Error Bars
can you conclude when standard error bars do not overlap? When standard error (SE) large error bars bars do not overlap, you cannot be sure that the difference between two means is statistically significant. Even though the sem error bars error bars do not overlap in experiment 1, the difference is not statistically significant (P=0.09 by unpaired t test). This is also true when you compare proportions with a chi-square test. What can you
What Are Error Bars In Excel
conclude when standard error bars do overlap? No surprises here. When SE bars overlap, (as in experiment 2) you can be sure the difference between the two means is not statistically significant (P>0.05). What if you are comparing more than two groups? Post tests following one-way ANOVA account for multiple comparisons, so they yield higher P values than t tests comparing just two groups. So the same rules apply.
What Do Small Error Bars Mean
If two SE error bars overlap, you can be sure that a post test comparing those two groups will find no statistical significance. However if two SE error bars do not overlap, you can't tell whether a post test will, or will not, find a statistically significant difference. What if the error bars do not represent the SEM? Error bars that represent the 95% confidence interval (CI) of a mean are wider than SE error bars -- about twice as wide with large sample sizes and even wider with small sample sizes. If 95% CI error bars do not overlap, you can be sure the difference is statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, the converse is not true--you may or may not have statistical significance when the 95% confidence intervals overlap. Some graphs and tables show the mean with the standard deviation (SD) rather than the SEM. The SD quantifies variability, but does not account for sample size. To assess statistical significance, you must take into account sample size as well as variability. Therefore, observing whether SD error bars overlap or not tells you nothing about whether the difference is, or is not, statistically significant. What if the groups were matched and analyzed
MenuMenu Home Current issue Comment Research Archive Archive by issue Archive by category Specials, focuses & supplements Authors & referees Guide to authors error bars standard deviation or standard error For referees Submit manuscript Reporting checklist About the journal About Nature Methods
How To Calculate Error Bars
About the editors Press releases Contact the journal Subscribe For advertisers For librarians Methagora blog Home archive issue how to draw error bars This Month full text Nature Methods | This Month Print Share/bookmark Cite U Like Facebook Twitter Delicious Digg Google+ LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon Previous article Nature Methods | This Month https://egret.psychol.cam.ac.uk/statistics/local_copies_of_sources_Cardinal_and_Aitken_ANOVA/errorbars.htm The Author File: Jeff Dangl Next article Nature Methods | Correspondence ExpressionBlast: mining large, unstructured expression databases Points of Significance: Error bars Martin Krzywinski1, Naomi Altman2, Affiliations Journal name: Nature Methods Volume: 10, Pages: 921–922 Year published: (2013) DOI: doi:10.1038/nmeth.2659 Published online 27 September 2013 Article tools PDF PDF Download as PDF (269 KB) View interactive PDF in ReadCube Citation http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v10/n10/full/nmeth.2659.html Reprints Rights & permissions Article metrics The meaning of error bars is often misinterpreted, as is the statistical significance of their overlap. Subject terms: Publishing• Research data• Statistical methods At a glance Figures View all figures Figure 1: Error bar width and interpretation of spacing depends on the error bar type. (a,b) Example graphs are based on sample means of 0 and 1 (n = 10). (a) When bars are scaled to the same size and abut, P values span a wide range. When s.e.m. bars touch, P is large (P = 0.17). (b) Bar size and relative position vary greatly at the conventional P value significance cutoff of 0.05, at which bars may overlap or have a gap. Full size image View in article Figure 2: The size and position of confidence intervals depend on the sample. On average, CI% of intervals are expected to span the mean—about 19 in 20 times for 95% CI. (a) Means and 95% CIs of 20 samples (n = 10) drawn from a normal population with mean m and s.d. σ
CatservEvolutionBlogGreg Laden's BlogLife LinesPage 3.14PharyngulaRespectful InsolenceSignificant Figures by Peter GleickStarts With A BangStoatThe Pump http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2008/07/31/most-researchers-dont-understa-1/ HandleThe Weizmann WaveUncertain PrinciplesUSA Science and Engineering Festival: The BlogWorld's Fair2010 World Science Festival BlogA Blog Around The ClockAdventures in https://andrewpwheeler.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/on-overlapping-error-bars-in-charts/ Ethics and ScienceA Good PoopAll of My Faults Are Stress RelatedAngry ToxicologistApplied StatisticsArt of Science LearningA Vote For ScienceBasic error bars Concepts in SciencebioephemeraBlogging the OriginBrookhaven Bits & BytesBuilt on FactsChaotic UtopiaChristina's LIS RantClass MCognitive DailyCommon KnowledgeCulture DishDean's CornerDeep Sea NewsDeveloping IntelligenceDispatches from the Creation WarsDot PhysicsDr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee RefugeEffect MeasureEruptionsevolgenEvolution for EveryoneEvolving ThoughtsFraming ScienceGalactic InteractionsGene ExpressionGenetic FutureGood Math, non overlapping error Bad MathGreen GabbroGuilty PlanetIntegrity of ScienceIntel ISEFLaelapsLife at the SETI InstituteLive from ESOF 2014Living the Scientific Life (Scientist, Interrupted)Mike the Mad BiologistMixing MemoryMolecule of the DayMyrmecosNeuron CultureNeuronticNeurophilosophyNeurotopiaNot Exactly Rocket ScienceObesity PanaceaObservations of a NerdOf Two MindsOmni BrainOn Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory GoddessOscillatorPhoto SynthesisPure PedantryRetrospectacle: A Neuroscience BlogRevolutionary Minds Think TankScience + SocietyScience After SunclipseScience is CultureScienceOnline 2010: The BlogSciencePunkScience To LifeSciencewomenSeed/MoMA SalonSee Jane ComputeShifting BaselinesSignoutSpeakeasy ScienceSpeaking Science 2.0Stranger FruitSuperbugTerra SigillataTetrapod ZoologyThe Blogger SAT ChallengeThe Book of TrogoolThe Cheerful OncologistThe Corpus CallosumThe Examining Room of Dr. CharlesThe Frontal CortexThe IntersectionThe Island of DoubtThe LoomThe Primate DiariesThe Quantum PontiffThe Questionable AuthorityThe Rightful Place ProjectThe ScienceBlogs Book ClubThe Scientific ActivistThe Scientific IndianThe Thoughtful AnimalThe Voltage GateThoughts from Kans
the other day in a blog post which showed trends over time in measures of smiling in high school yearbook photos. Surprisingly, Andrew did not make a comment on the error bars in the graph. Error bars with cross hairs are often distracting in the plot. In the example graph it is quite bad, in that they perfectly overlap, so the ends are very difficult to disentangle. Here I will suggest some alternatives. I simulated data that approximately captures the same overall trends, and replicated the initial chart in SPSS. First, a simple solution with only two groups is to use semi-transparent areas instead of the error bars. This makes it quite easy to see the overlap and non-overlap of the two groups. This will even print out nice in black-white. In the end, this chart is over-complicated by separating out genders. Since each follow the same trend, with females just having a constant level shift over the entire study period, there is not much point in showing each in a graph. A simpler solution would just pool them together (presumably the error bars would be smaller by pooling as well). The advice here still applies though, and the areas are easier to viz. than the discontinuous error bars. For more complicated plots with more groups, I would suggest doing small multiples. While it is harder now to see the exact overlap between groups, we can at least visually assess the trends within each group quite well. In the original it is quite a bit of work to figure out the differences between groups and keep the within group comparisons straight. Since the trends are so simple it is not impossible, but with more variable charts it would be quite a bit of work. For instances in which a trend line is not appropriate, you can dodge the individual error bars on the x-axis so that they do not perfectly overlap. This is the same principle as in clustered bar charts, just with points and error bars instead of bars. Here I like using just the straight lines (a tip taken from Andrew Gelman). The serif part of the I beam like error bars I find distracting, and make it necessary to separate the lines further. Using just the lines you can p