You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs.
10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation and correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are > right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an .... ok 10 words or less > version. > > In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else right, > these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. > > I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it won't > occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a rather > fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between > Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I don't > have that right then fine, tell me, but if you're going to crank up your > statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out > thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand at > ALL. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com >wrote: > >> >> Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at >> statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as >> follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a >> significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you replicated >> the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall very >> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that >> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other factors. >> It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a smaller >> sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical >> significance. >> >> So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small samples. It >> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned out >> to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good >> explanation of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power >> >> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, LRS Scout <lrssc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at >> >> all for the crap you've been talking. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: >> >> > >> >> > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat >> >> > you with experience >> >> > >> >> > . >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 >> people >> >> > >> and 28 people. >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd >> >> call >> >> > it >> >> > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same >> >> hypothesis. >> >> > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug >> are a >> >> > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's >> methodology. >> >> > And, >> >> > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them >> may >> >> > have >> >> > > said in an interview... >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> PURE BS! >> >> > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they >> >> > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have >> said >> >> > if >> >> > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but >> let's >> >> > cut >> >> > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I >> >> > suppose >> >> > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or >> you) >> >> > > seriously at this point. >> >> > > >> >> > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the >> >> > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's >> completely >> >> > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is >> wrong >> >> > > with ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346963 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
