Upload File

author date. introduction ◦ hypothesis ◦ significance ◦ definitions ◦ pathway methods ...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A
40
Does Birth Spacing Affect Adolescent Cognitive Ability Among Siblings in Dyads? Author Author Date

Upload: howard-hines

Post on 15-Dec-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

Tags:

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Does Birth Spacing Affect Adolescent Cognitive Ability

Among Siblings in Dyads?

AuthorAuthor

Date

Page 2: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Introduction◦ Hypothesis◦ Significance◦ Definitions◦ Pathway

Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Agenda

Page 3: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Among the population of adolescents in the study, younger siblings of dyad pairs born further apart from their older siblings will have higher cognitive scores than those born closer to their older siblings.

That is, you’ll be smarter if your parents have you and your sibling further in time apart.

Hypothesis

Page 4: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

How much time should you plan to set aside to have smart kids?

What makes you smarter than your younger sibling?

Significance

Page 5: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Birth spacing# months between sibling birth dates

Cognitive Ability◦ Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Definitions

Page 6: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

More attention for child

Different interaction between siblings

More resources for care

Pathway

Page 7: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Mostly infant and early childhood samples

Contradicting results◦ Yes, there is an association1,2,4,5,7,8, 11

◦ No, there is no association3,5, 6, 9, 10, 11

Weak controls in adolescent studies

Literature Review Summary

Page 8: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Study of adolescents

Stronger control for SES, gender, birth order, family size

Different cognitive measure

Our Value Added

Page 9: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Introduction Methods

◦ Study design◦ Exposure & Outcome variables◦ Covariates◦ Models & Interaction

Results Conclusion Q&A

Agenda

Page 10: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Child Health and Development Study Prospective, longitudinal Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Oakland, California Women and their children born 1959 – 1967 Adolescent Study (born between 1960 – 1963)

Methods: Study Design

Page 11: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Does Birth Spacing Affect Adolescent Cognitive Development? Figure 1.

*also excludes 9 records with inconsistent family size between PREPROD and ADOL

20,754

- Children w/severe anomalies

20,036

- Multiples

19,605

- Children whose mother had hypothyroidism

19,571

- Children not born 1960-1963

9,421

- Children not followed in Adolescent Study

1,900

- Children w/stepsiblings

1,768

- Children w/>1 sibling

384

- Children w/o Peabody score

375

- Children w/older sibling alive at Adol Study* and < 18 yrs older

364

135 Younger siblings

229 35 38 25 37

Older siblings <2 yrs 2-3 yrs 3.1-4 yrs > 4 yrs

Page 12: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Birth space interval = birthday of younger sibling – birthday of older sibling

3 versions of exposure:◦ Categorical exposure◦ Continuous exposure◦ Dual exposure (categorical and continuous)

Methods: Exposure

Page 13: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Version 1: Categorical (5) ◦ Second-born

≤2 years 2.1-3 years 3.1-4 years >4 years

◦ First-born

Version 2: Continuous (months)

Methods: Exposure

Page 14: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Version 3: Dual

◦ Categorical First-born Second-born

◦ Continuous (months)

Methods: Exposure

Page 15: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Continuous Peabody score (points) In general:

◦ SD = 15◦ Range = 0 to 160

In sample:◦ Range = 71 to 156◦ Mean = 117.9◦ SD = 14.3

Methods: Outcome

Page 16: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Methods: Covariates

maternal age race child

sex

sibling sex

delivery type

smoking

child age

head circumfere

nce

social class

marital status

low birthweigh

t

preterm

Page 17: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Methods: Covariates

maternal age race child

sex

sibling sex

delivery type

smoking

child age

head circumfere

nce

social class

marital status

low birthweigh

t

preterm

Page 18: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

maternal age race child

sex

sibling sex

Smoking

alcohol

child age

head circumfere

nce

social class

low birthweight

preterm

Methods: Covariates

Significance at p < 0.2

Page 19: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Methods: Covariates

Significance at p < 0.2

maternal age race child

sex

sibling sex

smoking

alcohol

child age

head circumfere

nce

social class

low birthweight

preterm

Page 20: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Methods: Full Model Covariates

Significance: >10% change in coefficient of at least 1 exposure category

maternal age race child

sex

sibling sex

smoking

alcohol

child age

head circumfere

nce

social class

low birthweight

preterm

Page 21: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Methods: Restricted Model Covariates

Significance at > 10% change in coefficient of at least 2 exposure categories

maternal age

race

child sex

smoking

child age

social class

Page 22: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Categorical Birth

spacing

Continuous birth spacing

Dual birth spacing

Full Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Restricted Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Interaction,Restricted

Model 7• Model 8• Model 9 • Model 10

N/A

Methods: Linear Regression Models

Page 23: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Continuous birth spacing variable B = 0.001 , p = 0.13

Methods: Quadratic Model Testing

80

100

120

140

pbp

ea

bd

-20 0 20 40 60 80spacemean

bandwidth = .8

Lowess smoother

Tiny magnitude

Pretty linear

Page 24: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Continuous exposure model Significance set at p < 0.2:

1. Birth spacing /race2. Birth spacing /child sex

Revised model Significance set at p < 0.2:

1. Birth spacing /child sex2. Race /child sex3. Birth spacing / child sex / race

Methods: Interaction

Page 25: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Introduction Methods Results

◦ Categorical Model◦ Continuous Model◦ Dual Model◦ Interaction

Conclusion Q&A

Agenda

Page 26: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Characteristic B 95% CI

Birth spacing

Second- born ≤2 yrs -- --

Second- born 2.1-3 yrs -3.1 (-8.9, 2.7)

Second- born 3.1-4 yrs -0.7 (-7.3, 5.8)

Second- born >4 yrs *-9.4 (-15.3, -3.5)

First-born -2.7 (-7.2, 1.9)

Maternal characteristics

Upper class (v. lower) *6.7 (3.9, 9.5)

White (v. other) *7.8 (4.5, 11.2)

Age (years) *0.4 (0.2, 0.7)

Smoking (yes v. no) *-3.9 (-6.7, -1.2)

Child characteristics

Male (v. female) 1.1 (-1.5, 3.8)

Age *4.3 (2.1, 6.5)

* p < 0.05

Results: Categorical Model

Page 27: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Characteristic B 95% CI

Birth spacing (months)

*-0.1 (-0.2, -0.02)

Maternal characteristics

Upper class (v. lower) *2.3 (2.3, 11.4)

White (v. other) 2.9 (-2.2, 9.5)

Age (years) 0.2 (-0.2, 0.7)

Smoking (yes v. no) 2.4 (-8.6, 0.7)

Child characteristics

Male (v. female) 2.2 (-3.7, 5.1)

Age 2.2 (-1.6, 7.0)

* p < 0.05

Results: Continuous Model

Page 28: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Characteristic B 95% CI

Birth spacing (months)

*-0.1 (-0.2, -0.1)

Maternal characteristics

Upper class (v. lower) *6.5 (3.7, 9.2)

White (v. other) *8.0 (4.7, 11.4)

Age (years) *0.5 (0.2, 0.7)

Smoking (yes v. no) *-3.7 (-6.4, -0.9)

Child characteristics

Male (v. female) 1.1 (-1.5, 3.8)

Age *4.5 (2.3, 6.7)

* p < 0.05

Results: Dual Model

Page 29: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Results: InteractionCharacteristic B 95% CI

Intercept β0 *108.3 (100.7, 115.9)

Birth spacing (years) β1 -0.6 (-4.3, 2.8)

Maternal characteristics

Upper class (v. lower) β2 *5.8 (1.3, 10.2)

White (v. other) β3 *9.9 (1.7, 18.1)

Age (years) β4 0.2 (-0.2, 0.6)

Smoking (yes v. no) β5 *-4.0 (-8.6, 0.5)

Child characteristics

Male (v. female) β6 *10.9 (0.9, 20.9)

Age β7 3.0 (-1.2, 7.3)

Interaction

Birth spacing / white β8 0.3 (-3.5, 4.1)

Birth spacing / male β9 *-8.5 (-16.6, -0.4)

White / male β10 *-11.7 (-22.9, -0.48)

Birth spacing/white/male β11 *7.1 (-1.2, 15.5)*p < 0.1

Page 30: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Slope (year) 95% CI Regression equation

White boys -1.8 (-3.3, -0.3)Y = B0 + (B1 + B8 + B9 + B11) yr + B3 + B6 + B10

Other boys -9.2 (-16.5, -1.9)Y = B0 + (B1 + B9) yr + B6

White girls -0.5 (-1.9, 1.0)Y = B0 + (B1 + B8) yr + B3

Other girls -0.8 (-4.3, 2.8)Y = B0 + B1* yr

Results: Interaction

** holding other covariates constant

Page 31: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

0.8 1.8 2.8 3.8 4.8 5.8 6.8 7.8 8.80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Other v. White Boys

Other BoysWhite Boys

Birth spacing (years)

Peab

od

y S

core

Peabody Score by Birth Spacing Interval (years)

Page 32: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

0.8 1.8 2.8 3.8 4.8 5.8 6.8 7.8 8.80

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160Other v. White Girls

Other BoysWhite BoysOther GirlsWhite Girls

Birth spacing (years)

Peab

od

y s

core

Peabody Score by Birth Spacing Interval (years)

Page 33: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Introduction Methods Results Conclusion

◦ Summary◦ Limitations & Strengths◦ Future Directions

Q&A

Agenda

Page 34: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Slight inverse relationship between birth spacing and Peabody score

Negligible difference in Peabody score

Interaction from gender and race

Summary

Page 35: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Small sample size Limited information on first-born siblings

◦ No PREPROD record Unable to compare scores within dyad Operationalizing cognitive ability

Limitations

Page 36: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Statistical rigor◦ Limiting confounders◦ Extensive covariates list◦ Interactions

Strengths

Page 37: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Bigger sample size

Designs that can account for what we could not◦ Different family sizes◦ Intra-family differences in Peabody score◦ Missing covariates

Exploring variables underlying interactions

Future Directions

Page 38: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

Introduction Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

◦ Thank you!

Agenda

Page 39: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

1. Breland HM. Birth order, family configuration, and verbal achievement, Child Development. 1974;43:1011–1019.

2. Dandes HM and Dow D. Relation of intelligence to family size and density, Child Development. 1969;40: 641–645. 

3. Gibbs ED, Teti DM, Bond LA. Infant-Sibling Communication Relationships to Birth-Spacing and Cognitive and Linguistic Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 1987;10(3):307-324.

4. Kamin KD, Kubinger, Schubert MR. Sibling constellation and intelligence in behavior disordered children, Zeitschrift fur klinische Psychologieforschung und Praxis. 1981;10:98– 109.

5. Lancer I, Rim Y. Intelligence Family Size and Sibling Age Spacing. Personality and Individual Differences. 1984;5(2):151-158.

6. Lewis M, Jaskir J. Infant Intelligence and its Relation to Birth Order and Birth Spacing. Infant Behavior and Development. 1983;6(1):117-120.

7. Nuttall EV and Nuttall RL. Child spacing effects on intelligence, personality, and social competence, Journal of Psychology . 1979;102:3–12.

References

Page 40: Author Date. Introduction ◦ Hypothesis ◦ Significance ◦ Definitions ◦ Pathway Methods Results Conclusion Q&A

8. Record RG, McKeown T, Edwards HH. An investigation of the difference in measured intelligence between twins and single births, Annals of Human Genetics. 1970;84:11–20.

9. Rodgers JL, Rowe DC. Does Contiguity Breed Similarity? A Within-Family Analysis of Nonshared Sources of IQ Differences between Siblings. Dev Psychol. 1985;21(5):743-

746. 10. Teti DM, Bond LA, Gibbs ED. Sibling-Created Experiences

Relationships to Birth-Spacing and Infant Cognitive Development. Infant Behavior and Development. 1986;9(1):27-42.

11. Wagner ME, Schubert HJP, Schubert DSP. Effects of Sibling Spacing on Intelligence Interfamilial Relations Psychosocial

Characteristics and Mental and Physical Health. Reese, H.W.(Ed.). Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol.19.X+260p.Academic Press Inc., Publishers: Orlando, Fla., Usa; Academic Press Inc.(London) Ltd.: London,

England. Illus. 1985:149-206.

References


Hypothesis testing - download.workflow4metabolomics.org€¦ · vancomycin-treated population INTRODUCTION (2) ... •Hypothesis testing = inferential method: extrapolation of conclusion

Biostat 200 Lecture 8 1. Hypothesis testing recap Hypothesis testing – Choose a null hypothesis, one-sided or two sided test – Set , significance level,

Hypothesis testing Dr David Field. Summary Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis Statistical significance (p-value, alpha level) One tailed and two

Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: A Review of an Old and

Null hypothesis significance testing

Chi-square test, Fisher’s Exact test, McNemar’s Test · Conclusion of Fisher’s Exact test At significance level 0.05, the null hypothesis of independence is not rejected because

Summary and Conclusion - NBER · 2020. 3. 20. · SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 1. Summary Statement of Hypothesis The permanent income hypothesis can be summarized in a system of three

On the Past and Future of Null Hypothesis Significance TestingKey words: null hypothesis testing, significance testing, statistical significance testing, p-values, effect sizes, Bayesian

TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS of hypothesis_Krishan.pdf · TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS Krishan K. Pandey (Ph.D.) ... Correlation ρ r SIGNIFICANCE TEST: A significance test is performed to determine

Hypothesis Testing and Tests of Significance

PSY 1950 Null Hypothesis Significance Testing September 29, 2008

Significance Testing & Univariate Significance Tests Purposes of NHST Process of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Univariate Significance Tests

Identify the hypothesis and the conclusion of each conditional statement

Hypothesis (significance) Testing Using the Binomial Distribution

MA ECONOMICS - COURSE PATTERN 2016 MA Economics.pdfstatistical hypothesis - Null and Alternative hypothesis, Goodness of fit, confidence intervals and level of significance, Hypothesis

Scientific Method (simplified) Problem Observations Hypothesis Experiment Data Conclusion Retest

Cohen, J. (1994) the Earth is Round (Hypothesis Significance Testing)

Hypothesis Testing (Statistical Significance). Hypothesis Testing Goal: Make statement(s) regarding unknown population parameter values based on sample

Evaluating Significance of Predictors Hypothesis Testing

If-Then Statements. A statement in two parts Hypothesis and Conclusion. Written in the If-Then form If..Hypothesis, then… Conclusion

Lecture 2: Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Continued

Observation Question Hypothesis Test Hypothesis Result (new hypothesis) Conclusion Leads too…..Scientific Theories (widely tested and accepted

1.What is a hypothesis? Create your own example. 2.How does a conclusion and hypothesis relate?

Hypothesis Tests OR Tests of Significance One Sample Means

Hypothesis Testing: Significance

Hypothesis Tests, Significance - Caltech High Energy Physics

HYPOTHESIS TESTING - Akademik Ciamik 2010€¦ · Hypothesis testing or significance testing • Hypothesis Testing is a procedure, based on sample evidence and probability theory,

Tests of Significance: Stating Hypothesis; Testing Population Mean

9.2 Critical Values for Statistical Significance in Hypothesis testingrdecook/stat1010/notes/... · 2011. 11. 10. · Critical Values for Statistical Significance ! Significance level

LECTURE 8 HYPOTHESIS TESTING AND STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE MSc (Addictions) Addictions Department

Conditional Statements M260 2.2. Deductive Reasoning Proceeds from a hypothesis to a conclusion. If p then q. p q hypothesis conclusion

Statistical Significance Hypothesis

Statistical Significance Testing and Cumulative Knowledge in … · 2017-10-18 · ods of statistical significance testing. Hypothesis testing based on the statistical significance

Hypothesis Tests for Means The context “Statistical significance” Hypothesis tests and confidence intervals The steps Hypothesis Test statistic Distribution

000 Discrete Math all slides - cse.psu.edugik2/teach/Discrete_Math-4.pdf · •Form of conditional: “If hypothesis, then conclusion”, equivalently “hypothesis → conclusion”