Now on ScienceBlogs: Map that Campus L

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Deltoid

Was the reduction in Orlando rapes statistically significant?

Crime rates go up and crime rates go down. Before seizing on some possibly coincidental factor such as gun training or gun control as the cause of the change, we need to establish if the change was unusual, i.e. statistically...

Search

Profile

Tim Lambert Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.

Wikio - Top Blogs - Sciences

Deltoid Facebook Group

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Full archives

Links

Blogroll

16th

« Australian homicide figures 1900-1940 | Main | What other factors could have caused the decrease in NSW homicides? »

Was the reduction in Orlando rapes statistically significant?

Category: Orlando
Posted on: September 24, 1992 4:42 AM, by Tim Lambert

Crime rates go up and crime rates go down. Before seizing on some possibly coincidental factor such as gun training or gun control as the cause of the change, we need to establish if the change was unusual, i.e. statistically significant. The only attempt I have seen to establish this is in Kleck and Bordua's paper which claims that the change was significant since it exceeded two standard deviations. This is wrong. A rate two standard deviations from the mean would be significant, but changes exceeding two standard deviations occur 15% of the time for normal variates, nowhere near the 5% generally accepted as statistically significant.

Richard Earl Benedict said:

I don't understand you here. Are you saying that Kleck's claim of two standard deviations is incorrect, or that two standard deviations is not significant? In normally distributed data, according to the empirical rule, 95% of the values fall within two standard deviations of the mean. Kleck actually only needed a z > 1.96 to achieve this, so if his claim of a z > 2 is correct, he has his 95% confidence level. A change of two standard deviations can't be both significant and insignificant at the same time, as you claim above.

Yes, my explanation was pretty opaque. I'll try again:

A crime rate two standard deviations from the mean would be statistically significant. However, The 67 rape rate was only 0.9 standard deviations less than the 58-66 mean, so this rate is not statistically significant. However the 66 rate was 1.7 standard deviations above the mean, so the change from 66 to 67 was 2.6 standard deviations (of the 58-66 rate). This is NOT significant because the standard deviation of the changes in the rates does not equal the standard deviation of the rates. For this data, the standard deviation of the rates from 58-66 is 12, and the standard deviation of the changes from one year to the next in the years 58-66 is 16. The change from 66 to 67 does NOT exceed 2 standard deviations (of the 58-66 changes in the rate).

If this is still unclear: consider a sequence of independent normal variates with mean 0 and standard deviation 1. 5% of the time the values will be greater than 2 or less than -2. Now construct a new sequence by computing the changes from one value to the next. This new sequence is also normally distributed with mean 0, but has standard deviation sqrt(2). 15% of the time the values will be greater than 2 or less than -2. 5% of the time the values will be values will be greater than 2.8 or less than -2.8.

Share on: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/93478

ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM