Random Error
Contents |
of causes of random errors are: electronic noise in the circuit of an electrical instrument, irregular changes in the heat loss rate from a solar collector due to changes in the wind. Random errors often have a Gaussian how to reduce random error normal distribution (see Fig. 2). In such cases statistical methods may be used to how to reduce systematic error analyze the data. The mean m of a number of measurements of the same quantity is the best estimate of that quantity,
Random Error Examples Physics
and the standard deviation s of the measurements shows the accuracy of the estimate. The standard error of the estimate m is s/sqrt(n), where n is the number of measurements. Fig. 2. The Gaussian normal
Random Error Calculation
distribution. m = mean of measurements. s = standard deviation of measurements. 68% of the measurements lie in the interval m - s < x < m + s; 95% lie within m - 2s < x < m + 2s; and 99.7% lie within m - 3s < x < m + 3s. The precision of a measurement is how close a number of measurements of the same quantity agree with types of errors in measurement each other. The precision is limited by the random errors. It may usually be determined by repeating the measurements. Systematic Errors Systematic errors in experimental observations usually come from the measuring instruments. They may occur because: there is something wrong with the instrument or its data handling system, or because the instrument is wrongly used by the experimenter. Two types of systematic error can occur with instruments having a linear response: Offset or zero setting error in which the instrument does not read zero when the quantity to be measured is zero. Multiplier or scale factor error in which the instrument consistently reads changes in the quantity to be measured greater or less than the actual changes. These errors are shown in Fig. 1. Systematic errors also occur with non-linear instruments when the calibration of the instrument is not known correctly. Fig. 1. Systematic errors in a linear instrument (full line). Broken line shows response of an ideal instrument without error. Examples of systematic errors caused by the wrong use of instruments are: errors in measurements of temperature due to poor thermal contact between the thermometer and the substance whose temperature is to be found, errors in measurements of solar radiation because trees or buildings shade the radiometer. The accuracy of a
of the measurement device. Random errors usually result from the experimenter's inability to take the same measurement in exactly
Systematic Error Calculation
the same way to get exact the same number. Systematic instrumental error errors, by contrast, are reproducible inaccuracies that are consistently in the same direction. Systematic errors are personal error often due to a problem which persists throughout the entire experiment. Note that systematic and random errors refer to problems associated with making measurements. Mistakes made http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html in the calculations or in reading the instrument are not considered in error analysis. It is assumed that the experimenters are careful and competent! How to minimize experimental error: some examples Type of Error Example How to minimize it Random errors You measure the mass of a ring three times using the same https://www2.southeastern.edu/Academics/Faculty/rallain/plab193/labinfo/Error_Analysis/05_Random_vs_Systematic.html balance and get slightly different values: 17.46 g, 17.42 g, 17.44 g Take more data. Random errors can be evaluated through statistical analysis and can be reduced by averaging over a large number of observations. Systematic errors The cloth tape measure that you use to measure the length of an object had been stretched out from years of use. (As a result, all of your length measurements were too small.)The electronic scale you use reads 0.05 g too high for all your mass measurements (because it is improperly tared throughout your experiment). Systematic errors are difficult to detect and cannot be analyzed statistically, because all of the data is off in the same direction (either to high or too low). Spotting and correcting for systematic error takes a lot of care. How would you compensate for the incorrect results of using the stretched out tape measure? How would you correct the measurements from improperly tared scale?
the recorded value of a measurement. There are many sources pf error in collecting clinical data. Error can be described as random or systematic. Random https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat509/node/26 error is also known as variability, random variation, or ‘noise in the https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat509/node/27 system’. The heterogeneity in the human population leads to relatively large random variation in clinical trials. Systematic error or bias refers to deviations that are not due to chance alone. The simplest example occurs with a measuring device that is improperly calibrated so that it consistently overestimates (or underestimates) random error the measurements by X units. Random error has no preferred direction, so we expect that averaging over a large number of observations will yield a net effect of zero. The estimate may be imprecise, but not inaccurate. The impact of random error, imprecision, can be minimized with large sample sizes. Bias, on the other hand, has a net direction and magnitude so how to reduce that averaging over a large number of observations does not eliminate its effect. In fact, bias can be large enough to invalidate any conclusions. Increasing the sample size is not going to help. In human studies, bias can be subtle and difficult to detect. Even the suspicion of bias can render judgment that a study is invalid. Thus, the design of clinical trials focuses on removing known biases. Random error corresponds to imprecision, and bias to inaccuracy. Here is a diagram that will attempt to differentiate between imprecision and inaccuracy. (Click the 'Play' button.) See the difference between these two terms? OK, let's explore these further! Learning objectives & outcomes Upon completion of this lesson, you should be able to do the following: Distinguish between random error and bias in collecting clinical data. State how the significance level and power of a statistical test are related to random error. Accurately interpret a confidence interval for a parameter. 4.1 - Random Error 4.2 - Clinical Biases 4.3 - Statistical Biases 4.4 - Summary 4.1 - Random Error › Printer-friendly version Navigation Start Here! Welcome
the sample size. This is illustrated in this section via hypothesis testing and confidence intervals, two accepted forms of statistical inference. Review of Hypothesis testing In hypothesis testing, a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis are formed. Typically, the null hypothesis reflects the lack of an effect and the alternative hypothesis reflects the presence of an effect (supporting the research hypothesis). The investigator needs to have sufficient evidence, based on data collected in a study, to reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis. Suppose an investigator is conducting a two-armed clinical trial in which subjects are randomized to group A or group B, and the outcome of interest is the change in serum cholesterol after 8 weeks. Because the outcome is measured on a continuous scale, the hypotheses are stated as: \(H_0: \mu_A = \mu_B \) versus \(H_0: \mu_A \ne \mu_B\) where μA and μB represent the population means for groups A and B, respectively. The alternative hypothesis of H1: μA ≠ μB is labeled a “two-sided alternative” because it does not indicate whether A is better than B or vice versa. Rather, it just indicates that A and B are different. A “one-sided alternative” of H1: μA< μB (or H1: μA> μB) is possible, but it is more conservative to use the two-sided alternative. The investigator conducts a study to test his hypothesis with 40 subjects in each of group A and group B (nA = 40 and nB = 40). The investigator estimates the population means via the sample means (labeled \(\bar{x}_A\) and \(\bar{x}_B\), respectively). Suppose the average changes that we observed are \(\bar{x}_A = 7.3\) and \(\bar{x}_B = 4.8 \text {mg/dl}\). Do these data provide enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the average changes in the two populations means are equal? (The question cannot be answered yet. We do not know if this is a statistically significant difference!) If the data approximately follow a normal distribution or are from large enough samples, then a two-sample t test is appropriate for comparing groups A and B where: \(t = (\bar{x}_A - \bar{x}_B) / (\text{standard error of } \bar{x}_A - \bar{x}_B)\). We can think of the two-sample t test as representing a signal-to-noise ratio and ask if the signal is large enough, relative to the noise detected? In the example, \(\bar{x}_A = 7.3\) and \(\bar{x}_B = 4.8 mg/dl\). If the standard error of \(\bar{x}_A - \bar{x}_B\) is 1.2 mg/dl, then: \( t_{obs} = (7.3 - 4.8) / 1.2 = 2.1\) But what does this value mean? Each t value has associated probabilities. In