Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
891
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Essentials of Manuscript Review Gary G. Poehling, MD – Editor-in-Chief Wake Forest University School of Medicine Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA
  • 2. Essentials of Manuscript Review Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
  • 3. Essentials of Manuscript Review
    • How to optimize scientific communication
    • How to organize a manuscript
    • How to use the essentials of statistics
    • How to review a submitted manuscript
    Learning objectives of this course
  • 4. How to Organize a Manuscript
    • Text (of an Original Article)
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
  • 5. How to Organize a Manuscript
    • Supporting Structure
    • Title
    • Abstract
    • References
    • Figures
    • Tables
  • 6. Introduction
    • Present succinct referenced review
    • Create reader interest
    • Identify controversy
    • State purpose
    • State hypothesis
  • 7. Introduction
    • Controversy stimulates questions.
    • The purpose of any study is to answer a question.
    • The hypothesis is a tentative theory
    • in which you state
    • what you believed you
    • would find *before*
    • you started the study.
  • 8. Introduction
    • Example
    • Controversy: Is arthroscopy of the knee beneficial to patients with osteoarthritis (OA)?
    • Purpose: To determine whether arthroscopy of the knee benefits patients with OA.
    • Hypothesis: Arthroscopy of the knee is of moderate benefit to patients with OA.
  • 9. Methods
    • Should include:
    • Technical description
    • of the study design
      • Make it complete
      • Make it reproducible
    • Rationale for experimental design
    • Statistical methods
  • 10. Methods
    • Study Design
    • Focus on the purpose.
    • Select the type of study that fits your purpose.
    • Use valid measurement tools.
    • Apply appropriate statistical methods.
  • 11. Methods
    • Study Design
    • Flaws in study design can be fatal.
  • 12. Levels of Evidence
    • Therapeutic Studies
    • Prognostic Studies
    • Diagnostic Studies
    • Economic and Decision Analyses
    Types of Studies—Clinical Only
  • 13. Levels of Evidence (pg 5 of the Journal’s Instructions for Authors)
  • 14. Levels of Evidence
    • Randomized controlled trial = Level I or II
    • Comparative study = Level II or III
    • Case-control study = Level III
    • Case series study = Level IV
    Therapeutic Studies
  • 15. Types of Studies
    • RETROSPECTIVE - Looks Back
    • Easier to do: collect data & see what you have
    • Higher risk of bias
    • PROSPECTIVE - Looks Ahead
    • Better type of study
    • Long time to complete
    • Considerable effort & resources
    • Straightforward conclusions
  • 16. Types of Studies
    • Observational Studies
    • Nature is allowed to take its course.
    • Investigator does *not* intervene.
    • Retrospective design
      • Case report - single subject - no controls
      • Case series - multiple subjects - no controls
    Level of Evidence = IV
  • 17. Types of Studies
    • Observational Studies
    • Retrospective design: case-control study
      • Starts with subjects who have a disease
      • Requires suitable control group without the disease
        • Look for suspected risk factor in both groups
        • May help determine causal relationships
        • Use it to study conditions with low incidence
    Level of Evidence = III
  • 18. Types of Studies
    • Observational Studies
    • Prospectively designed comparative study = patients treated one way compared with patients treated another way at the same institution
    Level of Evidence = II
    • Retrospectively designed comparative study :
    • Level of Evidence = III
  • 19. Types of Studies
    • Experimental Studies - Prospective
    • Investigator has total control of patient allocation.
    • Independent variables (manipulated by the investigator) are systematically changed.
      • Example: Knee Arthroscopy vs. a Placebo in Patients with Osteoarthritis
    • Investigator makes observations: How do these changes affect the dependent variables?
      • Examples: Pain (more or less?); Function (better or worse?)
  • 20. Types of Studies
    • Experimental Studies - Prospective
    • Randomized Controlled Trials
      • Population is randomly allocated.
      • Study group: All receive intervention.
      • Control group: All lack intervention or standard treatment.
      • Example: Knee arthroscopy vs. placebo
      • in VA patients with osteoarthritis
    Level of Evidence = I or II
  • 21. Levels of Evidence (pg 5 of the Journal’s Instructions for Authors)
  • 22. Data Collection Instruments
    • Requirements
    • Reliable
    • Valid
    • Responsive
    • Universal
    • Unbiased
  • 23. Data Collection Instrument
    • Is it reliable?
    • Will the instrument measure consistently across:
    • Different testing situations?
      • Test-retest reliability
    • Different judges?
      • Inter-rater reliability
  • 24. Data Collection Instrument
    • Is it valid?
    • Is the instrument being used to measure the kind of data for which it was intended?
  • 25. Data Collection Instrument
    • Is it responsive?
    • The instrument should be equally sensitive, whether a characteristic is present or absent.
    • For example, MRI vs. physical examination for isolated tears of the ACL . . .
    • Must measure both as compared to arthroscopy.
    • False-negatives:
    • You thought it was intact, but it was torn.
    • False-positives:
    • You thought it was torn, but it was intact.
  • 26. Data Collection Instrument
    • Is it universal?
    • The investigator should employ a widely used data collection instrument, which helps minimize reporting bias because the data can then be compared with other published literature.
  • 27. Data Collection Instrument
    • There should be no difference between the true value and the value that an investigator actually obtains– other than a difference caused by sampling variability.
    Is it unbiased?
  • 28. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Areas in which bias can occur
    • Systematic error in . . .
    • Allocation
    • Response
    • Assessment
  • 29. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Allocation or Susceptibility Bias
    • Can occur when patient assignments to a trial group are influenced by an investigator’s knowledge of the treatment to be received.
    • Can result in treatment groups that have different prognoses.
  • 30. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Allocation or Susceptibility Bias
    • Treatment groups must have similar prognoses, which is achieved by:
      • Randomization of patients
      • Prospective evaluation of patients
      • Well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • 31. Randomization in Clinical Trials
    • Occurs when patients are assigned to treatments by means of a mechanism that prevents both the patients and the investigator from knowing which treatment is being assigned.
  • 32. Benefits of Randomization
    • Prevents the systematic introduction of bias.
    • Minimizes the possibility of allocation bias.
    • Balances prognostic factors for treatment groups.
    • Improves the validity of statistical tests used to compare treatments.
  • 33. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Response & Assessment/Recording Bias
    • Can occur when a patient reports a treatment response or when an investigator assesses that response—either person can be influenced by knowing the treatment.
    • A patient or an investigator may have a preconceived idea of which treatment is better. The patient may also want to please the investigator.
  • 34. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Blinding
    • To minimize Response & Assessment/Recording Bias
    • Single Blind (patient blinded): protects against response bias.
    • Double Blind (patient and investigator blinded): protects against assessment/recording bias as well as response bias.
  • 35. Bias in Clinical Trials
    • Transfer bias
      • Occurs when patients are lost to follow-up.
      • Must be minimized.
    • Performance bias
      • Can occur with a single surgeon or with multiple surgeons.
  • 36. Rationale for Experimental Design
    • Here the investigator explains how the methods address the purpose of the study.
    • The rationale for experimental design also is used to clarify basic science for lay readers.
  • 37. Statistics Standard Distribution Curve
  • 38. Statistics Standard Deviation Curve
  • 39. Statistics Standard Deviation Curve
  • 40. Statistics Standard Deviation Curve
  • 41. Statistics Standard Deviation Curve
  • 42. Statistics
    • Z-Score
    • Another way to view standard deviation:
      • Number of Standard Deviations Needed
  • 43. Statistics
    • Z-score
    • Another way to view standard deviation:
      • Number of Standard Deviations Needed
      • 95% = 1.96 SD (use Z-Score 2)
  • 44. Statistics
    • Z-score
    • Another way to view standard deviation:
      • Number of Standard Deviations Needed
      • 95% = 1.96 SD (use Z-Score 2)
      • 99% = 2.58 SD (use Z-Score 2.5)
  • 45. Statistics
    • Standard Error
    • Standard Error (SEM, SDM) = Sample Quality
      • Standard deviation of the sample divided by the square root of the sample size
  • 46. Statistics
    • Confidence Interval
    • (Z-score x Standard Error)
  • 47. Statistics
    • Confidence Interval
    • (Z-score x Standard Error)
    • Z-Score: Number of Standard Deviations
  • 48. Statistics
    • Confidence Interval
    • (Z-score x Standard Error)
    • Z-Score: Number of Standard Deviations
    • Standard Error: Sample Quality
  • 49. Hypothesis
    • What the investigator believes—before the study begins—that the study can prove.
  • 50. Null Hypothesis
    • A statement of no effect
    • A “null hypothesis” is the converse of what the investigator believes can be proved.
  • 51. Standard Deviation Curve Null Hypothesis Hypothesis
  • 52. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data
  • 53. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Your Decision Based on Data Reject Null Hypothesis
  • 54. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Reject Null Hypothesis Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis
  • 55. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Reject Null Hypothesis Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision
  • 56. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Null Hypothesis False Reject Null Hypothesis Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision
  • 57. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Null Hypothesis False Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision
  • 58. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Null Hypothesis False Reject Null Hypothesis Type I Error Correct Decision Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision
  • 59. Null Hypothesis
    • State of the World (the population)
    Your Decision Based on Data Null Hypothesis True Null Hypothesis False Reject Null Hypothesis Type I Error Correct Decision Do Not Reject Null Hypothesis Correct Decision Type ll Error
  • 60. Null Hypothesis
    • Type I error α (alpha error)
  • 61. Null Hypothesis
    • Type I error α (alpha error)
    • Occurs when rejecting the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis actually is true (sampling error – bias).
  • 62. Null Hypothesis
    • Type I error α (alpha error)
    • Occurs when rejecting the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis actually is true (sampling error – bias).
    • Type II error β (beta error)
  • 63. Null Hypothesis
    • Type I error α (alpha error)
    • Occurs when rejecting the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis actually is true (sampling error – bias).
    • Type II error β (beta error)
    • Occurs when accepting the null hypothesis, although the null hypothesis actually is false (too-small sample).
  • 64. Statistical Power
    • Probability that the null hypothesis will be rejected if it is indeed false
  • 65. Statistical Power
    • Probability that the null hypothesis will be rejected if it is indeed false
    • The capacity to detect a difference, if one exists
  • 66. Statistical Power
    • Probability that the null hypothesis will be rejected if it is indeed false
    • The capacity to detect a difference, if one exists
    • Power = 1 -  (type II error)
  • 67. Statistical Power
    • N = 2 σ 2 (Z 1- α + Z 1- β ) 2 / δ 2
    •  = Standard deviation of outcome (variability)
      • Assumed to be known.
      • Estimated from pilot data.
      • Obtained from the literature.
    • Z 1-   = Allowable type I error
    • Z 1-   = Allowable type II error
    •  = Difference the investigator wants to detect
      • Between (or among) groups
    www.mc.vanderbilt.edu/prevmed/ps.htm
  • 68. Statistical Power
    • Problems with Inadequate Power
    • Chances of false-negative findings increase.
      • Note that failing to show a difference is not the same as showing that no difference exists.
  • 69. Statistical Power
    • Problems with Inadequate Power
    • Chances of false-negative findings increase.
      • Note that failing to show a difference is not the same as showing that no difference exists.
    • Wastes the time of patients & investigators.
  • 70. Statistical Power
    • Problems with Inadequate Power
    • Chances of false-negative findings increase.
      • Note that failing to show a difference is not the same as showing that no difference exists.
    • Wastes the time of patients & investigators.
    • Wastes money.
  • 71. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • A p-value indicates how unlikely it is that a test statistic as extreme as—or more extreme than—the one derived from this study’s data will be found for this patient population if the null hypothesis is true.
  • 72. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • P-values do not provide simple Yes or No answers.
  • 73. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • P-values do not provide simple Yes or No answers.
    • Instead, p-values provide general ideas about the strength of evidence against null hypotheses.
  • 74. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • P-values do not provide simple Yes or No answers.
    • Instead, p-values provide general ideas about the strength of evidence against null hypotheses.
    • The lower the p-value, the stronger the evidence.
  • 75. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • The Confidence Interval (CI) indicates a range of likely differences.
  • 76. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • The Confidence Interval (CI) indicates a range of likely differences.
    • Less confusion exists in the literature about Confidence Intervals because:
      • The range of possible true values is more clearly stated than with p-values.
  • 77. Evidence in Clinical Research
    • The Confidence Interval (CI) indicates a range of likely differences.
    • Less confusion exists in the literature about Confidence Intervals because:
      • The range of possible true values is more clearly stated than with p-values.
      • Apparently contradictory research can be found to have overlapping Confidence Intervals.
  • 78. Results
    • Clear Presentation of Data
    • Organize it like the materials and methods.
    • The numbers must add up.
    • All results must be proposed in the methods.
    • Everything in the methods must be reported.
    • Text must be consistent with tables & figures.
  • 79. Results
    • Evidence in Clinical Research
    • Confidence Interval = range of differences between (or among) treatment groups. Confidence Interval data are extremely useful and their use needs to be encouraged.
    • p < .05 = statistical significance
    • 95% sure that the difference is true – anything else assumes that it is not different or that the null hypothesis is true.
  • 80. Misinterpretation of Results
    • Comparison of 2 Groups
    • Failure to show a difference is not the same as showing that there is no difference – lack of power.
  • 81. Discussion
    • Compare Your Results to Previous Studies.
    • Discuss similarities and differences.
    • Clarify the meaning of your results.
  • 82. Discussion
    • Speculate – if reasonable and feasible.
    • Clearly distinguish your theories or opinions (from your conclusions, which are based on your results).
    Consider alternative explanations.
  • 83. Discussion: Include Limitations.
    • Point out study weaknesses.
    • Specifically consider bias:
      • Allocation (Susceptibility)
      • Response
      • Assessment (Recording)
      • Transfer
      • Performance
  • 84. Conclusion
    • Here you must address the hypothesis: was it proved?
    • What did your data support?
    • What did your results show?
    • Your conclusion must *not* include statements that lie outside the study’s scope.
    • Expressed another way . . .
    • Make no statements in the conclusion that the results do not support.
  • 85. Abstract
    • Original articles require a structured abstract (a maximum of 300 words).
    • In the structured abstract, present the essential details.
      • Purpose
      • Methods
      • Results
      • Conclusions
      • Level of Evidence (or Clinical Relevance)
      • Keywords (a maximum of 6)
  • 86. Abstract
    • Technical notes and case reports require . . .
    • An unstructured abstract (200-word maximum)
  • 87. Abstract
    • Technical notes and case reports require . . .
    • An unstructured abstract (200-word maximum)
    • Great majority of these articles -> “hybrids”
  • 88. Abstract
    • Technical notes and case reports require . . .
    • An unstructured abstract (200-word maximum)
    • Great majority of these articles -> “hybrids”
    • Hybrid = unstructured abstract & 1 figure/2 parts
  • 89. Abstract
    • Technical notes and case reports require . . .
    • An unstructured abstract (200-word maximum)
    • Great majority of these articles -> “hybrids”
    • Hybrid = unstructured abstract & 1 figure/2 parts
    • Abstract must give core message of article!
  • 90. Abstract
    • Technical notes and case reports require . . .
    • An unstructured abstract (200-word maximum)
    • Great majority of these articles -> “hybrids”
    • Hybrid = unstructured abstract & 1 figure/2 parts
    • Abstract must give core message of article!
    • Online -> entire article including all figures
  • 91. Title
    • Describe the Topic that was Studied.
    • Accurate and representative of the study’s content and scope
    • Clear
    • Informative
    • Brief
  • 92. References
    • Catalog Previously Published Information.
    • Choose references directly related to the study.
    • Read the complete referenced article.
    • Avoid 2nd hand or abstract reference sources.
    • Check and then doublecheck the final draft. Hint: Beware the word processor shuffle!
  • 93. Figures
    • “ A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words.”
    • Use figures to clarify your essential point.
    • Label arthroscopic views.
    • Include a self-explanatory legend for *each* figure part.
    • Take care not to mislead.
  • 94. Tables
    • Provide a Concise Summary of Data.
    • Do not repeat material found in the text.
    • Label columns clearly.
    • Group data logically.
    • Check that each table can stand on its own.
      • N, Mean, SD
      • Define all abbreviations, table by table.
  • 95. Reviewer Objectives
    • Faulty Grammar, Syntax, Typos?
    • Yes, a reviewer can mention them.
    • Remedy is the job of the copy editor.
    • Be sure that errors like these do not cause scientific misunderstanding that the copy editor may not know
    • should be corrected.
  • 96. Reviewer Objectives
    • Find the Pearl of Knowledge.
    • Indicate the strengths of the manuscript.
    • Provide constructive comments.
    • Review critically: uncover flaws in thinking.
    • Check for clarity of presentation.
  • 97. Manuscript Assessment
    • Writing a Review
    • Number your comments for the author’s response by referencing . . .
      • Page Numbers
      • Line Numbers
  • 98. Manuscript Assessment
    • Writing a Review
    • Be sure that the author makes statements only once . If it’s in the introduction, it should not be in the discussion. If it’s in a table, it should not be in the text.
    • Sole exception: If it first appears in the abstract, one repetition elsewhere is OK.
  • 99. Manuscript Assessment
    • Designate time to read it *twice*.
    • First – General. Brief. Let it sink in.
    • Second – Comprehensively mark up, then dictate/write/type review (not a linear
    • critique . . . iterative instead).
      • Address the hypothesis first. Then the conclusions.
      • Methods as key – adequate to answer the question?
      • Results – do these data lead to the conclusions?
      • Discussion – are alternative methods considered?
      • Introduction – is the study properly positioned?
      • Abstract – are all key points included?
  • 100. Writing a Review
    • Suggested Order
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Methods
    • 3. Results
    • 4. Discussion
    • 5. Conclusion
    6. Abstract 7. Title 8. References 9. Figures 10. Tables
  • 101. Manuscript Assessment
    • Does the Introduction include:
    • Purpose?
    • Hypothesis?
    • Methods
    • Are they reproducible?
    • Do they minimize bias?
    • Do they address the purpose?
    • Is there a rationale for the experimental design: Is the basic science clarified for the lay reader?
  • 102. Manuscript Assessment
    • Results
    • Are they clearly presented and unambiguous?
    • Are they relevant to the study or research problem?
    • Do the tables and figures clarify or confuse?
    • Is there duplication among the text, figures, or tables?
  • 103. Manuscript Assessment
    • Results
    • When results are unbelievably good, they probably are unbelievable!
    • However, the subjective beliefs of a reviewer should not override the objective results of a sound study.
  • 104. Manuscript Assessment
    • Discussion
    • Does it assess the relevant published literature?
    • Does it distinguish author opinion from the conclusions?
    • Does it examine the study’s limitations, including bias?
  • 105. Manuscript Assessment
    • Conclusion
    • Is it based on the data described in the results?
    • Does it address the hypothesis?
    • Does it stray beyond the boundaries of the study?
  • 106. Manuscript Assessment
    • Abstract, Title, References, Figures, Tables
    • Do they follow the guidelines discussed earlier in this online presentation?
  • 107. Manuscript Assessment
    • Establishes a baseline threshold for acceptance.
    • It’s biased and imperfect.
    • Erroneous decisions are inevitable.
    • Reviewer agreement does not assure that the study is accurate or valid.
    • However, the process is indispensable – better than any current alternative.
  • 108. Online Submission & Review
    • http://ees.elsevier.com/arth/
  • 109. Online Submission & Review
    • http://ees.elsevier.com/arth/
    • Journal Website ( www.arthroscopyjournal.org ) home page also has a link to the online system.
    • Many, many benefits with the online system:
    • * Faster turnaround and no lost-in-mail manuscripts
    • * No postage to pay
    • * Manuscript tracking online for corresponding author
    • * Electronic image files instead of photographic prints
  • 110. A Request for New Reviewers
    • http://ees.elsevier.com/arth/
    • Use the online system to register as an Author, being sure to specify personal classifications.
    • Email the Editorial Office that you have registered as an Author, have attended the Journal Review Course, and want to be a Reviewer.
    • The Editorial Office will make you a Reviewer & soon send you an Original Article to review online.
    • Thanks to the online system, it’s just that easy!
  • 111. Additional Statistical Material
    • Confidence Interval
    • Statistical Power
    • Sample Size
    • Data Types
    • Statistical Tests
  • 112. Confidence Interval (CI)
    • Example: 49 women; mean weight, 140 lbs. Standard deviation = 3.5 lbs.
    • Standard error = 3.5/7 =.5
      • (Standard deviation/square root of the sample size)
    • Z-Score 95% = 2 Z-Score 99% = 2.5
    • CI of 95% = 2 x .5 = 140 ± 1 CI of 99% = 2.5 x .5 = 140 ± 1.25
  • 113. Confidence Interval (CI)
    • CI of 95% = 2 x .5 = 140 ± 1
      • 95% confidence that the population’s true mean weight is between 139 lbs. and 141 lbs.
    • CI of 99% = 2.5 x .5 = 140 ± 1.25
      • 99% confidence that the population’s true mean weight is between 138.75 lbs. and 141.25 lbs.
    • Two groups can be significantly different and yet have an overlapping Confidence Interval.
  • 114. Statistical Power
    • The Capacity to Detect a True Difference
    • A Test Has Greater Power When:
    • The sample size is larger.
    • Variability decreases.
    • The effect size is larger.
    • The chance of Type I error is greater . . .
      • Which may lead the investigator to reject the null hypothesis although it is true.
  • 115. Sample Size
    • N = 2 σ 2 (Z 1- α + Z 1- β ) 2 / δ 2
    • N increases as:
    • Variability increases.
    • Type I & Type II errors decrease.
    • The difference that the investigator wants to detect decreases.
  • 116. What are the Data Types?
    • The Type of Scale used to express the Outcome is the Key.
    • Discrete
      • Nominal - Put in boxes (Male vs. Female) 0-0
      • Ordinal - Rank order (Intervals Unequal) ± 0
        • Stages of disease
  • 117. What are the Data Types?
    • The Type of Scale used to express the Outcome is the Key.
    • Continuous
      • Interval - numerical (intervals equal; e.g.,+-+ temperature: 80 ° to 40 ° F., 26.6 ° to 6.1 ° C. ) +/-
      • Ratio - has an absolute zero (e.g., height and +-+ weight) +/- but also x or ÷
  • 118. What Statistical Test To Run?
    • If Interval Data Only
    • Pearson Correlation - ? Linear Correlation
    • Regression - Nature of relationship
  • 119. What Statistical Test To Run?
    • If Nominal Data Only
    • Chi-Square Test – use with samples > 25
    • Fisher’s Exact Test – use with samples ≤ 25
  • 120. What Statistical Test To Run?
    • If Ordinal Data Only
    • Spearman Rank Order Correlation
  • 121. What Statistical Test To Run?
    • If Interval and Nominal Data Are Combined
    • One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
      • 1 interval and 1 nominal variable with > 2 groups
    • Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
      • 1 interval and 2 nominal variables
  • 122. What Statistical Test To Run?
    • If Interval and Nominal Data Are Combined
    • t-test: 1 Interval and 1 Nominal Variable with 2 groups
      • If nondirectional: Two-tailed test
      • If directional: One-tailed test
    Tail Tail
  • 123. Thank You