- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 438
- Reaction score
- 23
Can anyone tell me how to interpret graphs with stars over every single bars? Does this mean every bar is statistically significantly different from each other?
Thanks!
Thanks!
It's in the caption. It means they're all statistically significant with p < 0.001 compared to control. They're not being compared to each other.
With all due respect @aldol16, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The control is not in the figure because the entire figure is normalized to the control. Note the y-axis label that says "% of control." The fact that the control is not in the figure not only makes perfect sense in this case, but is NOT an example of a ****ty question from a test prep company. Typical arrogant student.
The graph shown in this passage is EXACTLY how it was shown in the published peer-reviewed article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nV51SUjAw3jwRcqvA&sig2=Yo1MqhFF0dSWGgsty92z7A
I think you had better call up those authors and tell them how ****ty their graphs are.
I highly recommend the strategy of trying to learn how to better analyze such questions, rather than just calling them ****ty because you missed the quesiton or did not understand it. I think that was the OPs original intent.
The graph shown in this passage is EXACTLY how it was shown in the published peer-reviewed article: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nV51SUjAw3jwRcqvA&sig2=Yo1MqhFF0dSWGgsty92z7A
Your responses are case in point as to your arrogance.
But in fact, you did not know what you were talking about in the post to which I responded. Nor would I have used the tone I did in my response had you not started with the expletive insults. You called it a ***ty question because the control was not included in Figure 3. You seemed to suggest it should have another bar? I simply said the original did not. More importantly, the MCAT does NOT specify the identity of the control in every case; it's probably 50/50. In many cases, the AAMC authors will list only "control." Sometimes they'll then ask the examinee to identify the likely control in a question.
I believe the intent of the question was probably to see if students recognized that those asterisks were NOT actually for the differences between bars. The solution makes the point that one must use the error bars in this case, which it would not have if the asterisk-labeled p-values were the relevant statistical test.
I am no PhD, but then I've never claimed to be. Just a stupid hick who can answer 99% of MCAT questions correctly and has proven adept at helping others do the same, including ones like this that seem obvious to me but are often overcomplicated by "minds immeasurably superior" to my own...
By the way, this passage/question set was assembled by a woman who is the department chair at a major university, has been a PhD molecular biologist for some 4 decades, is very widely published, has taught for decades, and has big-time $$$ in research funding. I'm not saying that anyone, regardless of experience, might not author an MCAT passage that could benefit from some clarification, but your bloviation about your recent progression from grad student to post-bac is so ironically distasteful.
Your responses are case in point as to your arrogance.
But in fact, you did not know what you were talking about in the post to which I responded. Nor would I have used the tone I did in my response had you not started with the expletive insults. You called it a ***ty question because the control was not included in Figure 3. You seemed to suggest it should have another bar? I simply said the original did not. More importantly, the MCAT does NOT specify the identity of the control in every case; it's probably 50/50. In many cases, the AAMC authors will list only "control." Sometimes they'll then ask the examinee to identify the likely control in a question.
I believe the intent of the question was probably to see if students recognized that those asterisks were NOT actually for the differences between bars. The solution makes the point that one must use the error bars in this case, which it would not have if the asterisk-labeled p-values were the relevant statistical test.
I am no PhD, but then I've never claimed to be. Just a stupid hick who can answer 99% of MCAT questions correctly and has proven adept at helping others do the same, including ones like this that seem obvious to me but are often overcomplicated by "minds immeasurably superior" to my own...
By the way, this passage/question set was assembled by a woman who is the department chair at a major university, has been a PhD molecular biologist for some 4 decades, is very widely published, has taught for decades, and has big-time $$$ in research funding. I'm not saying that anyone, regardless of experience, might not author an MCAT passage that could benefit from some clarification, but your bloviation about your recent progression from grad student to post-bac is so ironically distasteful.
Your responses are case in point as to your arrogance.
But in fact, you did not know what you were talking about in the post to which I responded. Nor would I have used the tone I did in my response had you not started with the expletive insults. You called it a ***ty question because the control was not included in Figure 3. You seemed to suggest it should have another bar? I simply said the original did not. More importantly, the MCAT does NOT specify the identity of the control in every case; it's probably 50/50. In many cases, the AAMC authors will list only "control." Sometimes they'll then ask the examinee to identify the likely control in a question.
I believe the intent of the question was probably to see if students recognized that those asterisks were NOT actually for the differences between bars. The solution makes the point that one must use the error bars in this case, which it would not have if the asterisk-labeled p-values were the relevant statistical test.
I am no PhD, but then I've never claimed to be. Just a stupid hick who can answer 99% of MCAT questions correctly and has proven adept at helping others do the same, including ones like this that seem obvious to me but are often overcomplicated by "minds immeasurably superior" to my own...
By the way, this passage/question set was assembled by a woman who is the department chair at a major university, has been a PhD molecular biologist for some 4 decades, is very widely published, has taught for decades, and has big-time $$$ in research funding. I'm not saying that anyone, regardless of experience, might not author an MCAT passage that could benefit from some clarification, but your bloviation about your recent progression from grad student to post-bac is so ironically distasteful.
Your responses are case in point as to your arrogance.
Let's put this to bed. I never said you were a "prick". I did call you arrogant, and probably should not have. Please accept my apology. Putting yourself in my shoes, it's not the most humble or friendly thing in the world either to lead out with calling the Altius passage ****ty, nor generalizing that such ****ty passages are "Typical," nor calling me/Altius the "idiot test prep company." If you find what you think is a problem with any Altius exam in the future, just PM me and I'll pass it up the line for further consideration.
I don't know the author who compiled that passage personally, but Altius does have every passage marked w/ the authors and PhD reviewers so our internal curriculum team can go back and clarify issues as they arise. I'll share your comments with my boss and he can decide if he wants to review them with the passage author. My point w/ mentioning her was that you make it sound like Altius is a bunch of *****s, when people with credentials much greater than your own have worked on our materials extensively and continue scouring them every day for possible improvements, sometimes disagreeing vociferously w/ one another. I'll bet if you wrote a passage for us and we put it through our normal editing process, some other PhDs would have a few corrections for you, not to mention the hits you might take on the "internet-forum-osphere." Although, I do know a few of our PhD editors and I don't think anyone would call you an idiot, or call your work **it, no matter how glaring your mistake.