---
title: "Why use correlation-adjusted confidence intervals?"
bibliography: "../inst/REFERENCES.bib"
csl: "../inst/apa-6th.csl"
output: 
  html_document:
    toc: TRUE
description: >
  This vignette explains the difference between a regular confidence interval
  and a correlation-adjusted confidence interval.
vignette: >
  %\VignetteIndexEntry{Why use correlation-adjusted confidence intervals?}
  %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
  \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
---


```{r, echo = FALSE, message = FALSE,  results = 'hide'}
cat("this will be hidden; use for general initializations.")
library(superb)
library(ggplot2)
```


In paired-sample designs ---also called within-subject designs--- the same participants
are measured more than once. In that case, asking whether a factor influenced the
scores is the same as asking if the factor influenced all the participants. If all 
the participants turn out to be influenced in the same manner, it can be safely 
concluded that the factor influenced the group of participants.

## An example

Consider a study trying to establish the benefit of using exercises to improve 
visuo-spatial abilities onto scores in statistics reasoning, as measured by a standardized 
test with scores ranging from 50 to 150. The design is a within-subject design,
specifically a pre-exercises measure and a post-exercises measure of statistics reasoning.

The data are available in ``dataFigure2``; here is a snapshot of it

```{r}
head(dataFigure2)
```

There is a large variation in the scores obtained and as such a *t* test where 
the scores are treated as independent will fail to detect a difference:

```{r}
t.test(dataFigure2$pre, dataFigure2$post, var.equal=TRUE)
```

However, examining the data, in which each participant's scores are shown with 
a line, we get this:

```{r, message=FALSE, echo=TRUE, fig.width = 4, fig.cap="**Figure 1**. Representation of the individual participants"}
library(reshape2)

# first transform the data in long format; the pre-post scores will go into column "variable"
dl <- melt(dataFigure2, id="id")

# add transparency when pre is smaller or equal to post
dl$trans = ifelse(dataFigure2$pre <= dataFigure2$post,0.9,1.0)

# make a plot, with transparent lines when the score increased
ggplot(data=dl, aes(x=variable, y=value, group=id, alpha = trans)) + 
    geom_line( ) +
    coord_cartesian( ylim = c(70,150) ) +
    geom_abline(intercept = 102.5, slope = 0, colour = "red", linetype=2)
```

As seen, except for 5 participants, a vast majority of the participants have an
upward trend in their results. Thus, this upward trend is probably a reality in
this dataset.

## Centering the participants to better see the trend

One solution used in @c05 is to center the participants' data on the 
participants' mean. It consists in computing for each participant their mean 
score and replace that participant's mean score with the overall mean. With 
this manipulation, all the participants will now hover around the overall 
mean (here 102.5, shown with a red dashed line).

The following realizes this *subject-centered* plot for each participant.

```{r, message=FALSE, echo=TRUE, fig.width = 4, fig.cap="**Figure 2**. Representation of the *subject-centered* individual participants"}
# use subjectCenteringTransform function 
library(superb)
df2 <- subjectCenteringTransform(dataFigure2, c("pre","post"))

# tranform into long format
library(reshape2)
dl2 <- melt(df2, id="id")

# make the plot
ggplot(data=dl2, aes(x=variable, y=value, colour=id, group=id)) + geom_line()+
    coord_cartesian( ylim = c(70,150) ) +
    geom_abline(intercept = 102.5, slope = 0, colour = "red", size = 0.5, linetype=2)
```

Here again, we see that for 5 participants, their scores went down. For the 20 remaining 
ones, the trend is upward. Thus, there is clear tendency for the exercices to be 
beneficial.

Running the adequate *paired* *t* test, we find indeed that the difference 
is strongly significant (t(24) = 2.9, p = .008):

```{r}
t.test(dataFigure2$pre, dataFigure2$post, paired=TRUE)
```

## What is the impact on confidence intervals?

The above suggests that within-subject designs can be much more powerful than between-
subject design. As long as there is a general trend visible in most participants, the
paired design will afford more statistical power. How to we know that there is a
general trend? An easy solution is to compute the correlation across the pairs of 
scores.

In R, you can run the following:

```{r}
cor(dataFigure2$pre, dataFigure2$post)
```

and you find out that in the present dataset, correlation is actually quite high, with
$r \approx .8$. Whenever correlation is positive, statistical power benefits from
correlation.

Because increased power means higher level of precision, the error bars should be 
shortened by positive correlation. Estimating the adjusted length of the error
bars from correlation is a process called **decorrelation** [@c19].

To this date, three techniques have been proposed to decorrelate the measures.

* ``CM``: This method uses *subject-centering* followed by a bias-correction step (otherwise
the error bars are slightly overestimated) [@c05; @m08].

* ``LM``: This method also uses *subject-centering* and bias-correction 
but when there are more than two measurements, it also equalizes the length of 
the error bars using a technique akin to pooled standard deviation measure [@lm94].

* ``CA``: this is the newest proposal. It directly uses the correlation (or the mean
pairwise correlation when there are more than two measurement) to adjust the error bar
length. In a nutshell, the error bar length are adjusted using a multiplicative term
$\sqrt{1-r}$. As an example, when $ r = .8$, the adjustment is $\sqrt{1-.8} = 0.44$.
That means that the error bars are 44% the length of the unadjusted error bars
(that is, less than half).

Whichever method you choose have very little bearing on the actual result. As 
shown in @c19, all three methods are based on the same general concepts and 
they generate very little difference in the amount of adjustments.

In the present dataset, the error bar are more than shorten by half! which clearly 
shows the benefit of the within-subject design on precision.


## Making it simple

With ``suberb``, all the decorrelation techniques are available using the adjustment
``decorrelation`` [@cgh21].

Consider the following

```{r, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE, echo=TRUE, fig.width = 4, fig.cap="**Figure 3**. Means and 95% confidence intervals on raw data (left) and on decorrelated data (right)"}
options(superb.feedback = 'none') # shut down 'warnings' and 'design' interpretation messages
library(gridExtra)

## realize the plot with unadjusted (left) and ajusted (right) 95\% confidence intervals
plt2a <- superbPlot(dataFigure2, 
        WSFactors    = "Moment(2)", 
        adjustments = list(purpose = "difference"), 
        variables   = c("pre","post"), 
        plotStyle   = "line" ) + 
    xlab("Group") + ylab("Score") + 
    labs(title="Difference-adjusted\n95% confidence intervals") +
    coord_cartesian( ylim = c(85,115) ) +
    theme_gray(base_size=10) + 
    scale_x_discrete(labels=c("1" = "Collaborative games", "2" = "Unstructured activity"))
plt2b <- superbPlot(dataFigure2, 
        WSFactors    = "Moment(2)", 
        adjustments = list(purpose = "difference", decorrelation = "CA"),  #only difference
        variables   = c("pre","post"), 
        plotStyle   = "line" ) + 
    xlab("Group") + ylab("Score") + 
    labs(title="Correlation and difference-adjusted\n95% confidence intervals") +
    coord_cartesian( ylim = c(85,115) ) + 
    theme_gray(base_size=10) +
    scale_x_discrete(labels=c("1" = "Collaborative games", "2" = "Unstructured activity"))
plt2  <- grid.arrange(plt2a,plt2b,ncol=2)
```

In the above plot, I used ``decorrelation = "CA"``. When there is only two conditions, all the 
techniques return identical error bars.

As another example illustrating the differences between the techniques, I 
generated random data for 5 measures  with an
amount of correlation of 0.8 in the population. In Figure 4 below, all error 
bars are superimposed 
on the same plot. As seen, there is only minor differences between the 
three techniques. The green lines all have the same length; this is the 
main characteristic of the Loftus and Masson approach, in contrast with the 
other two techniques.


```{r, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE, echo=FALSE, fig.width = 4, fig.cap="**Figure 4**. All three decorelation techniques on the same plot along with un-decorrelated error bars"}
# using GRD to generate data with correlation of .8 and a moderate effect
options(superb.feedback = 'none') # shut down 'warnings' and 'design' interpretation messages
test <- GRD(WSFactors = "Moment(5)", 
            Effects = list("Moment" = extent(10) ),
            Population = list(mean = 100, stddev = 25, rho = 0.8) ) 

# the common label to all 4 plots
tlbl <- paste( "(red) Difference-adjusted only\n",
            "(blue) Difference adjusted and decorrelated with CM\n",
            "(green) Difference-adjusted and decorrelated with LM\n",
            "(orange) Difference-adjusted and decorrelated with CA", sep="")

# to make the plots all identical except for the decorrelation method
makeplot <- function(dataset, decorrelationmethod, color, nudge, dir) {
    superbPlot(dataset, 
            WSFactors = "Moment(5)",  
            variables   = c("DV.1","DV.2","DV.3","DV.4","DV.5"), 
            adjustments=list(purpose = "difference", decorrelation = decorrelationmethod), 
            errorbarParams = list(color=color, width= 0.1, position = position_nudge(nudge), direction = dir ),
            plotStyle="line" ) + 
        xlab("Moment") + ylab("Score") + 
        labs(subtitle=tlbl) +
        coord_cartesian( ylim = c(85,115) ) +
        theme_gray(base_size=16) 
}

theme_transparent <- theme(
        panel.grid.major = element_blank(), 
        panel.grid.minor = element_blank(),
        panel.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent",colour = NA),
        plot.background = element_rect(fill = "transparent",colour = NA)
        )

# generate the plots, nudging the error bars and using distinct colors
pltrw <- makeplot(test, "none", "red",          -0.15, "both")
pltCM <- makeplot(test, "CM",   "blue",         -0.05, "left")
pltLM <- makeplot(test, "LM",   "chartreuse3",  +0.05, "both")
pltCA <- makeplot(test, "CA",   "orange",       +0.15, "right")

# transform the ggplots into "grob" so that they can be manipulated
pltrwg <- ggplotGrob(pltrw)
pltCMg <- ggplotGrob(pltCM + theme_transparent)
pltLMg <- ggplotGrob(pltLM + theme_transparent)
pltCAg <- ggplotGrob(pltCA + theme_transparent)

# put the grobs onto an empty ggplot 
ggplot() + 
    annotation_custom(grob=pltrwg) + 
    annotation_custom(grob=pltCMg) + 
    annotation_custom(grob=pltLMg) + 
    annotation_custom(grob=pltCAg)
```


## Illustrating individual differences

In ``superb``, it is possible to ask a certain type of plot. The ``plotStyle`` used so
far is ``"line"`` (the default is ``"bar"``). Another basic style is ``"point"`` (no line
connecting the means). 

Other types of plot exists that are apt at showing the summary statistics but also
the individual scores (the [6th Vignette]
(https://dcousin3.github.io/superb/articles/Vignette6.html) shows how to 
develop custom-made layouts). 
For illustrating individual differences, a style proposed is ``pointindividualline``
which --- as per Figure 1--- will show the individual scores along with the summary
statistics and the error bars. For example:

```{r, message=FALSE, warning=FALSE, echo=TRUE, fig.width = 4, fig.cap="**Figure 5**. Means and 95% confidence intervals along with individual scores depicted as lines"}
superbPlot(dataFigure2, 
    WSFactors    = "Moment(2)", 
    adjustments = list(purpose = "difference", decorrelation = "CM"), 
    variables   = c("pre","post"), 
    plotStyle   = "pointindividualline" ) + 
xlab("Group") + ylab("Score") + 
labs(subtitle="Correlation- and Difference-adjusted\n95% confidence intervals") +
coord_cartesian( ylim = c(70,150) ) +
theme_gray(base_size=16) + 
scale_x_discrete(labels=c("1" = "Collaborative games", "2" = "Unstructured activity"))
```

## In conclusion

The major obstacle to the use of adjusted error bars was the difficulty to obtain them.
None of the statistical software (e.g., SPSS, SAS) provide these adjustments. A way
around is to compute these manually. Although not that complicated, it requires manipulations,
whether they are done in EXCEL, or through macros [e.g., WSPlot, @oc14].

The present function renders all the adjustments a mere option in a function. 




# References
