0
$\begingroup$

This is a question about (1) whether to consider specific data as ordinal/ interval or continuous, and, (2) if the data should be considered ordinal/interval, what the best test is to see whether a treatment and control group are different and how they are different.

I have data from a treatment and control sample about maize seed sales in Africa. 50 different stores were randomly assigned to a treatment and control group and each store has approximately 200 clients purchasing maize. Sales are always done in multiples of 0.25 acres between 0.25 and 2.0 acres. I want to look at whether the treatment caused people purchasing maize in the stores to buy either more or less maize.

In the past, I've always treated the this as a continuous variable, calculated the average maize acres sold for each store, and compared the average maize acreage sold by treatment and control stores using a t-test. Like this:

avg_maize_sales_t <- c(
0.9724265, 0.9318182, 0.8770764, 0.8687500, 0.8556701, 0.8524590, 
0.8448276, 0.8342246, 0.8264249, 0.8257261, 0.7986322, 0.7986111, 0.7975207, 
0.7955882, 0.7833333, 0.7809798, 0.7798507, 0.7785235, 0.7745902, 0.7719780, 
0.7685874, 0.7671990, 0.7604167, 0.7500000, 0.7489712, 0.7465940, 0.7438080,
0.7282322, 0.7257143, 0.7220874, 0.7202381, 0.7079439, 0.7002165, 0.6882022, 
0.6858491, 0.6687307, 0.6553309, 0.6455882, 0.6437126, 0.6403162, 0.6360294, 
0.6305638, 0.6303630, 0.6294788, 0.6200397, 0.6077406, 0.6030220, 0.6021505, 
0.6011561, 0.5926641, 0.5916955, 0.5890288, 0.5667752, 0.5557185, 0.5200000)

avg_maize_sales_c <- c(
0.6783042, 0.6370482, 0.6330935, 0.6305970, 0.6126543, 0.6090116, 
0.6038851, 0.5965517, 0.5925481, 0.5849057, 0.5771812, 0.5727848, 0.5689046, 
0.5681090, 0.5638889, 0.5365385, 0.5258380, 0.5254065, 0.5245098, 0.5238095, 
0.5230769, 0.5181818, 0.5171875, 0.5125786, 0.5089744, 0.5053763, 0.5022936,
0.5012019, 0.5010593, 0.4735169, 0.4696429, 0.4695946, 0.4669312, 0.4605263, 
0.4595436, 0.4587500, 0.4581545, 0.4561404, 0.4528443, 0.4513889, 0.4504717, 
0.4457547, 0.4453125, 0.4434783, 0.4434629, 0.4381188, 0.4375000, 0.4251269, 
0.4150943, 0.3989899, 0.3750000, 0.3692893, 0.3630573, 0.3449612)

t.test(avg_maize_sales_t, avg_maize_sales_c)

Welch Two Sample t-test

data:  t and c
t = 12.764, df = 100.46, p-value < 2.2e-16
alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
95 percent confidence interval:
 0.1860005 0.2544595
sample estimates:
mean of x mean of y 
0.7226032 0.5023732 

I'm starting to think that this is not the appropriate way to compare the two groups, since maize sales is not a true continuous variable.

The data below shows number of sales for each different maize acreage amount in each group.

treat <- data.frame(
            maize_sale = c(0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2) 
            ,count = c(2279, 5759, 703, 3358, 846, 462, 27, 490)
)

cont <- data.frame(
            maize_sale = c(0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2) 
            ,count = c(2738, 5172, 728, 1516, 268, 120, 10, 104)
)

Question: Is the method I've been using (averaging acreage per store and doing a t-test) appropriate for comparing the difference in acres sold, or should I treat the variable as ordinal / interval and use a different statistical test to see whether there the treatment resulted in more or less maize acres sold per client?

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The ordinal/interval distinction matters only with respect to whether you consider mean differences meaningful in your theoretical context. If you do, then a t test of differences between means is fine (given its assumptions). The statistical analysis makes distributional assumptions but no assumptions about the level of measurement but, as I said, it can have implications for your interpretation of a mean difference.

There is not a distinction between ordinal/interval and continuous variables. Continuous variables can be ordinal, interval, or neither. There is a distinction between continuous and discrete variables. The t test does assume normal distributions which means a continuous variable, but violating that assumption by having a discrete variable will not cause a problem if the distribution is not extremely nonnormal.

With a p value as low as yours, you don't have to be concerned at all that the population difference is 0. Even extreme violations of assumptions will not produce a p value that low with any nontrivial probability if the null hypothesis is true.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.