Original Query: >>> "Peter Levy" <[log in to unmask]> 21/09/00 14:09:43 >>> <<Is there a good reason why the standard error is commonly used for error bars instead of the 95% confidence interval, other than they are roughly half as big, so give a visual impression of higher confidence? Is it simply because they are independent of any particular p value?>> Responses ---------------------------------- So far as I can tell, the use of standard error rests on nothing but convention and inertia. The standard error is simply the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of sample means, and as such represents approximately the 68% confidence interval. I agree it would make much better sense to have error bars represent the 95% interval. Richard Lowry ---------------------------------- Well, for a start, SE bars are not really 'independent of any particular p-value' - for a normal distribution, they represent a '68.3% confidence interval'. So, they are entirely analogous to CIs, just quantitatively different. I think the simple answer to your question is 'no' - i.e. there is no 'good reason', except for history and tradition - and, as you presumably mean to imply, there is every 'good reason' to actually go for 95% CIs instead. However, SE bars were being used long before most people were even thinking about the concept of confidence intervals - and that has stuck. One of the most unfortunate thing, of course, is that one so often hears people attempting to draw conclusions based on 'overlapping'/'non-overlapping' SE bars. As I'm sure you know, this interpretation is not even as simple as some might think in relation to 95% CI's, and certainly is misleading in terms of SE bars. Dr John Whittington ---------------------------------- Also, there is less dependence on the normality assumption. Not no dependence, but less. Jay Warner ---------------------------------- If you look in various journals at the reporting of results you will find that authors are not consistent in usage when it comes to "mean and error bars". Some plot the mean +/- the standard deviation some plot the mean +/- the standard error. I put this usage down to statistical innumeracy, authors know they have to give some indication of the variability of their results and so they use this type of display. I don't think that the majority even think about confidence intervals or anything as sophisticated as your suggestions. I have even seen "mean and error bars" given when each set of data consisted of only two or three measurements! In the book "Medical Statistics on Personal Computers" R A Brown and J Swanson Beck BMJ Pulishing Group (2nd ed 1994) ISBN 0 7279 0771 9 we put this down (page 15) as a "display to be avoided". Dick Brown ---------------------------------- Much of my work concerns experiments which are making a comparison between two groups, treated and control. The appropriate confidence interval is for the difference between the means. It is misleading to show 95% confidence bars for the means of the two groups separately unless the absolute value of the mean for the group is the main focus of interest and not the difference between the groups. In pharmacology, it is standard practise to plot the mean +/- sem for the individual groups. Pharmacologists are familiar with data plotted in this way and usually interpret it correctly. This is less often true if you show them mean and 95 ci for each group they become - indeed, in my experience they usually ask for mean+- sem instead. I make a point of always indicating the sample size in the figure caption whenever I plot sem bars. T R Auton ---------------------------------- Thanks to those who responded. Peter Levy Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Bush Estate, Penicuik Midlothian, EH26 0QB, UK Tel: 0131 445 8556 (direct) 0131 445 4343 (switchboard) Fax: 0131 445 3943 E-mail: [log in to unmask] %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%