At 03:04 PM 10/9/01 -0700, Dale Glaser wrote: > It would seem that by standardizing the CI, as Karl suggests, then we > may be able to get a better grasp of the dimensions of error.......at > least I know the differences between .25 SD vs. 1.00 SD in terms of magnitude
well, yes, 1 sd means about 4 times as much "spread" (in sd units that is) than .25 sd (whether it be error or anything else) ... but, UNLess you know what the underlying scale is ... what the raw units mean ... have some feel for the "metric" you started with ... i don't see that this really makes it "instantaneously" more understandable i would like to see a fully worked out example ... where we have say: regular effect sizes next to standardized effect sizes ... and/or regular CIs next to standardized CIs ... and then try to make the case that standardized values HELP one to UNDERSTAND the data better ... or the inference under examination ... we might even do some study on this ... experimental ... where we vary the type of information ... then either ask Ss to elaborate on what they think the data mean ... or, answer some mc items about WHAT IS POSSIBLE to infer from the data ... and see if standardizing really makes a difference my hunch is that it will not >..........or is this just a stretch?!!! > >Dale N. Glaser, Ph.D. >Pacific Science & Engineering Group >6310 Greenwich Drive; Suite 200 >San Diego, CA 92122 >Phone: (858) 535-1661 Fax: (858) 535-1665 ><http://www.pacific-science.com>http://www.pacific-science.com > ============================================================== dennis roberts, penn state university educational psychology, 8148632401 http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
