Re: Two sided test with the chi-square distribution?

2001-02-10 Thread Donald Burrill

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, jim clark wrote in part:

 We all agree that it is confusing, but I do believe that the use
 of one-tailed and two-tailed to refer to directional vs.
 non-directional hypotheses (rather than uniquely to one or two
 tails of a distribution) is very wide-spread and quite common.  

There would not be a problem if the hypotheses in question were STATED.  
It's this sloppy habit of saying "F test" or "chi square test", with no 
hint of WHICH "F test" or "chi square test"  one is talking about, that 
impedes communication.

 That is probably what led to the posting that initiated this
 thread.  

Yes.  "I thought the chi-square test was always two-sided", or words to 
that effect, the querent wrote.  He she or they have not, in all the 
correspondence since, said what the hypothesis being tested was.

I had written:
  It is still possible to use the F _statistic_ to test the null 
  hypothesis that Var1 = Var2, in circumstances where it is entirely 
  possible that Var1  Var2, Var1 = Var2, or Var1  Var2.  In such 
  cases _both_ tails of the F distribution are of interest, not just 
  the upper tail.
--- and Jim replied:

 Right, but if one calculates F_larger/F_smaller, then one is only
 looking at the upper tail of the F distribution even though one
 is doing a non-directional test (i.e., two-tailed in the
 vernacular).  The appropriate critical value for a
 non-directional test would be F_.05. 

Whoops!  Not if you want to test at the usual 5% level!  For a 
non-directional test of the null hypothesis that two variances are 
equal, the critical value would be  F_(alpha/2).

 If you made a directional hypothesis and predicted which variance was 
 going to be larger (as implied in F's use for anova and regression), 
 then you would compare the obtained value of F to F_.10, not F_.05.  

I'll agree with you if you halve those subscripts!  (Or acknowledge that 
you wanted to test at the 10% level...)

You state that using F in ANOVA and regression imply that one had a 
_prediction_ of which variance would be larger.  This is not how I 
understand the idea of "predicting", which I take to imply that one could 
have predicted something in the opposite direction.  In ANOVA the null 
hypothesis _of interest_ is commonly expressed as "all the means are 
equal" (in some language or other), vs. "some of the means differ", and 
the alternative hypothesis is indeed non-directional -- in the metric of 
the subgroup means.  But the hypothesis actually _tested_ (using F) is 
the null hypothesis that a particular variance component is zero, vs. the 
alternative that it isn't, and since a variance component cannot be 
negative, the alternative really is that the variance component in 
question is positive:  thus in the metric of variances the alternative 
hypothesis is one-sided.  This is a matter of algebra, not of 
"predicting" the direction of an effect.  
However, perhaps others are more willing to use "predict" in 
this rather sloppy (from my point of view ;-) fashion.

 You are using the upper tail (i.e., one-tail) of the distribution to 
 test a directional (i.e., "one-tailed") hypothesis.

Yes.  Because a result in the _lower_ tail would tend to confirm the 
null hypothesis, not reject it.

 Like Don, I hope that language can become clearer on these
 issues, but my suspicion is that it will be a long, long time
 before one- vs. two-tailed stops meaning directional
 vs. non-directional alternative hypotheses for most people.

I have no problem with that.  I just wish that people would say what 
they're talking about:  if it's a hypothesis test that is of concern, 
what is the hypothesis and what is the test statistic, for example. 
To say only "chi-square test" or "F test" or "z test" is simply 
insufficient. 
-- Don.
 --
 Donald F. Burrill[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 348 Hyde Hall, Plymouth State College,  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 MSC #29, Plymouth, NH 03264 (603) 535-2597
 Department of Mathematics, Boston University[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 111 Cummington Street, room 261, Boston, MA 02215   (617) 353-5288
 184 Nashua Road, Bedford, NH 03110  (603) 471-7128



=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=



Re: Levels of measurement.

2001-02-10 Thread Warren Sarle


In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul W. Jeffries) writes:
 ...
 The textbooks say that a ratio scale has the properties of an interval
 scale plus a true zero point. This implies that any scale that has a true
 zero point should have the cardinal property of an interval scale; namely,
 equal intervals represent equal amounts of the property being measured.

No, you've reversed the direction of the implication.

 But isn't it possible to have a scale that has a true zero point but on
 which equal intervals do not always represent the same magnitude of the
 property?  Income measured in dollars has a true zero point; zero dollars
 is the absence of income. Yet, an increase in income from say 18,000 to
 19,000 is not the same as an increase in 1,000,000 to 1,001,000.  At the
 low end of the income scale an increase of a thousand dollars is a greater
 increase in income than a thousand dollar increase at the high end of the
 scale.

See the discussion of log-interval scales in 
ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html


-- 

Warren S. Sarle   SAS Institute Inc.   The opinions expressed here
[EMAIL PROTECTED]SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily
(919) 677-8000Cary, NC 27513, USA  those of SAS Institute.


=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
  http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=