oh... it's matrix algebra? I used to like that stuff. And I don't remember anything about it either. OK good enough.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > 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:346968 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
