| Station | Method | N | Mean | Std Dev | Std Err | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US0001 | 25 | 5.9781 | 0.0150 | 0.00299 | 5.9527 | 6.0116 | |
| US0002 | 19 | 5.9560 | 0.0129 | 0.00296 | 5.9413 | 5.9852 | |
| Diff (1-2) | Pooled | 0.0221 | 0.0141 | 0.00430 | |||
| Diff (1-2) | Satterthwaite | 0.0221 | 0.00421 |
Below is the output from the following Proc TTEST:
Proc ttest data=want alpha=.001;
where station in('US0001','US0002');
Class station;
var slm;
run;
The upper limit for the 99.9% confidence limit of the mean for US0002 is larger than the lower limit for US0001. This suggests to me that there is no statistically significant difference between the two means at 99.9% confidence level. Yet the lower confidence limit for the DIF(1-2) value is positive whereas I expected it to be negative suggesting a statistically significant difference at the 99.9% confidence limit. How should I interpret these seemingly conflicting results?
Thanks,
Gene
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: SLM
| Station | Method | N | Mean | Std Dev | Std Err | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US0001 | 25 | 5.9781 | 0.0150 | 0.00299 | 5.9527 | 6.0116 | |
| US0002 | 19 | 5.9560 | 0.0129 | 0.00296 | 5.9413 | 5.9852 | |
| Diff (1-2) | Pooled | 0.0221 | 0.0141 | 0.00430 | |||
| Diff (1-2) | Satterthwaite | 0.0221 | 0.00421 |
| Station | Method | Mean | 99.9% CL Mean | Std Dev | 99.9% CL Std Dev | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US0001 | 5.9781 | 5.9669 | 5.9893 | 0.0150 | 0.0100 | 0.0268 | |
| US0002 | 5.9560 | 5.9444 | 5.9676 | 0.0129 | 0.00822 | 0.0260 | |
| Diff (1-2) | Pooled | 0.0221 | 0.00694 | 0.0373 | 0.0141 | 0.0103 | 0.0215 |
| Diff (1-2) | Satterthwaite | 0.0221 | 0.00723 | 0.0371 | |||
| Method | Variances | DF | t Value | Pr > |t| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pooled | Equal | 42 | 5.15 | <.0001 |
| Satterthwaite | Unequal | 41.245 | 5.26 | <.0001 |
| Equality of Variances | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Num DF | Den DF | F Value | Pr > F |
| Folded F | 24 | 18 | 1.34 | 0.5299 |
@genemroz wrote:
The upper limit for the 99.9% confidence limit of the mean for US0002 is larger than the lower limit for US0001. This suggests to me that there is no statistically significant difference between the two means at 99.9% confidence level.
This is an incorrect interpretation/usage of confidence limits. It does not indicate statistical difference or lack of statistical difference. Overlapping confidence intervals is not equivalent to a T-test.
Yet the lower confidence limit for the DIF(1-2) value is positive whereas I expected it to be negative suggesting a statistically significant difference at the 99.9% confidence limit.
Not sure why you expect DIF(1-2) to be negative. The T-test has p-value < 0.0001 indicating that the two means are statistically different at your chosen alpha level.
@genemroz wrote:
The upper limit for the 99.9% confidence limit of the mean for US0002 is larger than the lower limit for US0001. This suggests to me that there is no statistically significant difference between the two means at 99.9% confidence level.
This is an incorrect interpretation/usage of confidence limits. It does not indicate statistical difference or lack of statistical difference. Overlapping confidence intervals is not equivalent to a T-test.
Yet the lower confidence limit for the DIF(1-2) value is positive whereas I expected it to be negative suggesting a statistically significant difference at the 99.9% confidence limit.
Not sure why you expect DIF(1-2) to be negative. The T-test has p-value < 0.0001 indicating that the two means are statistically different at your chosen alpha level.
It's finally time to hack! Remember to visit the SAS Hacker's Hub regularly for news and updates.
Learn the difference between classical and Bayesian statistical approaches and see a few PROC examples to perform Bayesian analysis in this video.
Find more tutorials on the SAS Users YouTube channel.
Ready to level-up your skills? Choose your own adventure.