Maintaining standards: differences between the standard deviation and standard error, and when to use each.

D L Streiner

doi:10.1177/070674379604100805

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8899234

Maintaining standards: differences between the standard deviation and standard error, and when to use each.

D L Streiner

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many people confuse the standard deviation (SD) and the standard error of the mean (SE) and are unsure which, if either, to use in presenting data in graphical or tabular form. The SD is an index of the variability of the original data points and should be reported in all studies. The SE reflects the variability of the mean values, as if the study were repeated a large number of times. By itself, the SE is not particularly useful; however, it is used in constructing 95% and 99% confidence intervals (CIs), which indicate a range of values within which the "true" value lies. The CI shows the reader how accurate the estimates of the population values actually are. If graphs are used, error bars equal to plus and minus 2 SEs (which show the 95% CI) should be drawn around mean values. Both statistical significance testing and CIs are useful because they assist the reader in determining the meaning of the findings.

Explore related subjects

Confidence Intervals Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Psychiatry Research Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

D L Streiner. 1996. Maintaining standards: differences between the standard deviation and standard error, and when to use each.. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674379604100805

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Covariates-dependent confidence intervals for the difference or ratio of two median survival times.

In this paper, we are concerned with the estimation of the discrepancy between two treatments when right-censored survival data are accompanied with covariates. Conditional confidence intervals given the available covariates are constructed for the difference between or ratio of two median survival times under the unstratified and stratified Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. The proposed confidence intervals provide the information about the difference in survivorship for patients with common covariates but in different treatments. The results of a simulation study investigation of the coverage probability and expected length of the confidence intervals suggest the one designed for the stratified Cox model when data fit reasonably with the model. When the stratified Cox model is not feasible, however, the one designed for the unstratified Cox model is recommended. The use of the confidence intervals is finally illustrated with a HIV+ data set.

Confidence Intervals↗

PubMed2007

Inferences on standardized mean difference: the generalized variable approach.

The standardized mean difference has been widely used as the most common index of effect magnitude in many applied fields. In this paper, we propose a novel approach using the concept of generalized variable for the confidence interval estimation and hypothesis testing of standardized mean difference. Furthermore, we extend this approach to compare standardized mean differences between two studies or between two strata. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed approach can provide confidence intervals with excellent coverage properties and can perform hypothesis testing with satisfactory type-I error control.

Confidence Intervals↗

PubMed2007

Interval estimation for rank correlation coefficients based on the probit transformation with extension to measurement error correction of correlated ranked data.

The Spearman (rho(s)) and Kendall (tau) rank correlation coefficient are routinely used as measures of association between non-normally distributed random variables. However, confidence limits for rho(s) are only available under the assumption of bivariate normality and for tau under the assumption of asymptotic normality of tau. In this paper, we introduce another approach for obtaining confidence limits for rho(s) or tau based on the arcsin transformation of sample probit score correlations. This approach is shown to be applicable for an arbitrary bivariate distribution. The arcsin-based estimators for rho(s) and tau (denoted by rho(s,a), tau(a)) are shown to have asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE) of 9/pi2 compared with the usual estimators rho(s) and tau when rho(s) and tau are, respectively, 0. In some nutritional applications, the Spearman rank correlation between nutrient intake as assessed by a reference instrument versus nutrient intake as assessed by a surrogate instrument is used as a measure of validity of the surrogate instrument. However, if only a single replicate (or a few replicates) are available for the reference instrument, then the estimated Spearman rank correlation will be downwardly biased due to measurement error. In this paper, we use the probit transformation as a tool for specifying an ANOVA-type model for replicate ranked data resulting in a point and interval estimate of a measurement error corrected rank correlation. This extends previous work by Rosner and Willett for obtaining point and interval estimates of measurement error corrected Pearson correlations.

Confidence Intervals↗