In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Hoenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it was the ICC he was pushing I wouldn't mind so much, but he has > insisted we include Bland & Altman's limits of agreement (which is > simply the mean difference +/- [1.96*stddev] which has no signficance > test), and he is now systematically having us remove every other > statistical test we've included in the paper. The only other test > left in the paper is the paired t-test and now he wants a reference to > show it is valid to use. I'm hoping to find a reference that will > allow us to keep the paired t-test and bring back the Pearson's r. > > The question regarding Pearson's r and ICC below just popped into my > head when I was working on all this and for this paper. > You didn't mention the discipline of the journal. Is it perhaps a medical or physiology journal? Is it in the UK or Europe? I've seen a trend for those journals to reject articles that report significance testing. they have been insisting on statistics such as confidence intervals rather than p-values. If this is the case you may need to revisit your data with a slightly different methodological approach. This is just a suspicion I have based on the editor's insistance on using Bland and Altman (Both of which I greatly admire, BTW.). Altman has an excellent book on calculating and applying various confidence interval approaches. I know that Altman is/was involved with BMJ's move away from sig testing towards CI. I don't know your circumstances so everything I've written may be bunk. Anyway, I hope I've helped. Jay Lee . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
