>> 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.
It is a behavioral optometry journal in the US. We've published similar articles in this journal before, but this new statistical reviewer they hired must be one of those who doesn't like significance testing. . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
