Without going into detail, it involves power analysis, and I remember darned little of the matrix algebra course I took years ago.
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but > i am glad to hear that I do indeed semi-remember this stuff. I m kinda > curious about the calculation they did a thousand times if you are able to > formulate a description. But it doesn't need to be right now. Take your > time, and hey :) fifty words even. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com >wrote: > >> >> 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:346966 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
