ADV:Membermail Daniel Leuenberger `SECRET LOLITAS ARCHIVE`

Welcome to SECRET LOLITAS ARCHIVE ! http://Lolita.fuckedvideo.com You have seen a lot of "lolita" sites? Tons of consoles, low speed connection, small and blurry photos. Right? Want to see real Lolitas site? http://Lolita.fuckedvideo.com site amoung others. We all know that only pay sites ca

Virus to edstat list

I fear that once again someone has sent a virus to the edstat list. If you receive a message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject line "Branca de Neve porno!", please delete it without opening the attachment. Jackie Dietz Listowner -- +

not significant

Hi,   If a result is not significant, I realise this is because it may be due to chance.    Is there a way of telling if more subjects are needed or there actually is no difference between the groups?   Thanks in advance Sylvie.Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ==

Splus function loglin, help needed.

The help file for the S+ function loglin is scant. You pass it the model by specifiying a list, e.g. loglin(dat, list(1:2,3)) I'm trying to understand this. Suppose I have a 3D table. Does 1:N mean fit the nth way interaction? Are all lower level interactions and main effects automatically inc

Re: not significant

sylvie perera wrote: > > Hi, > > If a result is not significant, I realise this is because it may > be due to chance. > > Is there a way of telling if more subjects are needed or there > actually is no difference between the groups? This isn't quite the right question. What you're trying to ge

Re: Definitions of Likert scale, Likert item, etc.

I tried to use a visual scale in a student undergrad assignment (so they would have more continuous-like numbers). It was hopeless. Some of the respondants circled anchors, no matter how explicit I tried to make the instructions (I see that you (Michelle) left the intermediate anchors off, thoug

Re: not significant

I wrote: > What you're trying to get at is > answered in part by a confidence interval for the difference between ^^ > the groups, Meant to write mean difference. = Inst

Re: H-Statistic Can't find lookup table for large number of samples

On 10 Sep 2001 15:37:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JD Kronicz) wrote: >I am a human health risk assessor. I am trying to calculate the 95% >UCL of a lognormal distribution. The data sets I have all have about >350 samples. I can't find a lookup table for the H-Statistic for more >than 100 sampl

effect size/significance

given a simple effect size calculation ... some mean difference compared to some pooled group or group standard deviation ... is it not possible to obtain the following combinations (assuming some significance test is done) effect size small me

Re: H-Statistic Can't find lookup table for large number of samples

You may want to look at this paper... I checked the approximation.. it is very satisfactory for all practical purpose. Krishnamoorthy Zhou, X. H. and Gao, S. (1997). Confidence intervals for the lognormal mean. Statistics in Medicine, 16, 783-790. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROT

Re: effect size/significance

At 04:04 PM 9/12/01 -0400, you wrote: if that is true ... then what benefit is there to look at significance AT ALL To get published, get tenure, and avoid having to live in a cardboard box in the park.  Ha ha! Lise

teragram

I would like to ask how to convert teragram to kilogram. Thanks for helping~ = Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at http://jse.st

simple linear regression

I have two questions regarding simple linear regression that I was hoping someone could help me with. 1) According to what I have learned so far, the levels of X are "fixed," so that only Y is the random variable ( error is random as well). My question is, what if X is a random variable as well

Re: effect size/significance

Hi On 12 Sep 2001, dennis roberts wrote: > At 07:23 PM 9/12/01 -0500, jim clark wrote: > >What your table shows is that _both_ dimensions are informative. > >That is, you cannot derive effect size from significance, nor > >significance from effect size. To illustrate why you need both, > >consid

Re: teragram

"Tera" indicates 10^12, which is a trillion, in the American system. "Kilo" indicates a thousand, or 10^3. So, converting teragrams to kilograms involves multiplying by 10^9, i.e. 1,000,000,000. Jerrold H. Zar, Professor Department of Biological Sciences Northern Illinois University DeKalb,

Re: effect size/significance

Hi On 12 Sep 2001, Dennis Roberts wrote: > given a simple effect size calculation ... some mean difference compared to > some pooled group or group standard deviation ... is it not possible to > obtain the following combinations (assuming some significance test is done) > >

Re: teragram

"¥ð-³·¤Hºµ¿ß-¥ð-->¦b¥[®³¤j" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like to ask how to convert teragram to kilogram. >From , SI prefix `Tera' == 10^12 = 1,000,000,000,000. SI prefix `kilo' == 10^3 = 1,000. The rest is left as an exercise for the

Re: not significant

[cc'd to previous poster; please follow up in newsgroup] Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu: >What you're trying to get at is >answered in part by a confidence interval for the difference between >the groups, which tells you what differences are consistent with the >data. >See

Re: not significant

You need to check (may be by simulations) if your test has any power to reject the null. If the power is low than get more subjects. On 12 Sep 2001, sylvie perera wrote: > Hi, > > If a result is not significant, I realise this is because it may be due > to chance. > > Is there a way of telling i

Re: simple linear regression

the assumption of fixed regressors (X) is the first to be relaxed usually. There is no sence to assume fixed regressors unless your data is coming from a controled expreriment. The model and estimation methods may stay without change, only the interpretation of the model changes. Now you can spe

Re: effect size/significance

At 07:23 PM 9/12/01 -0500, jim clark wrote: >Hi > > >What your table shows is that _both_ dimensions are informative. >That is, you cannot derive effect size from significance, nor >significance from effect size. To illustrate why you need both, >consider a study with small n that happened to get

Re: not significant

At 10:10 PM 9/12/01 -0400, Stan Brown wrote: >[cc'd to previous poster; please follow up in newsgroup] > >Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in sci.stat.edu: > >One suggestion, if I may: I scratched my head for a moment over >"SEM". At least in my course, I don't believe the textbook ever uses