Ãâ·ÑÏÂÔØ£¬¾«²Ê¾¡ÔÚ·½ÕýApabi Reader
·½ÕýApabi
ReaderÊDZ±´ó·½Õýµç×Ó¹«Ë¾Â¡ÖØ·¢²¼µÄ·½ÕýApabiµç×ÓÊéÕûÌå½â¾ö·½°¸µÄÒ»¸ö²¿·Ö£¬ÊÇÌṩ¸ø¶ÁÕß×î¾ßÈËÐÔ»¯µÄµç×ÓÊéÔĶÁÈí¼þ¡£Ê¹Ó÷½Õý
Apabi Reader£¬Äã¿ÉÒÔÏóÔĶÁÖ½ÊéÒ»ÑùÏíÊÜÔĶÁµç×ÓÊéµÄÀÖȤ£¬
Äã¿ÉÒÔ×ã²»³ö»§¹ºÂòÄãÐÄÒÇÒѾõĵç×ÓÊ飬
ͬʱ»¹¿ÉÒÔʵÏÖ¸öÈ˷ḻ
Dennis Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: given a simple effect size calculation ... some mean difference compared to
: that is ... can we not get both NS or sig results ... when calculated
: effect sizes are small, medium, or large?
: if that is true ... then what benefit is there to look a
Hi
I found the Rosenthal reference that addresses the following
point:
On 13 Sep 2001, Herman Rubin wrote:
> The effect size is NOT small, or it would not save more
> than a very small number of lives. If it were small,
> considering the dangers of aspirin, it would not be used
> for this purpo
Hi
On 13 Sep 2001, Herman Rubin wrote:
> jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Or consider a study with a small effect size that is significant.
> >The fact that the effect is significant indicates that some
> >non-chance effect is present and it might very well be important
> >theoretically
jim clark wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes I think that people are looking for some "magic
> bullet" in statistics (i.e., significance, effect size,
> whatever) that is going to avoid all of the problems and
> misinterpretations that arise from existing practices. I think
> that is a naive belief and tha
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Paul R. Swank wrote in part:
> Dennis said
>
> other than being able to say that the experimental group ... ON AVERAGE ...
> had a mean that was about 1.11 times (control group sd units) larger than
> the control group mean, which is purely DESCRIPTIVE ... what can you say
Thanks a lot~
"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Sorry, I misread the original and sent the teragram -> gram conversion.
> D'oh!
>
> Teragram -> kilogram is of course 10^9.
>
> -Robert Dawson
>
>
> =
Thanks so much~
"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > The implausibly named a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a? wrote:
> > >
> > > I would like to ask how to convert teragram to kilogram.
> > > Thanks for helping~
> > > Try
>
>http://www.t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Vadim and Oxana Marmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 significan
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>On 12 Sep 2001, Dennis Roberts wrote:
>> that is ... can we not get both NS or sig results ... when calculated
>> effect sizes are small, medium, or large?
>> if that is true ... then what benefit is there to look at
>>
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>On 13 Sep 2001, Rolf Dalin wrote:
>> Hi, this is about Jim Clark's reply to dennis roberts.
.
>Sometimes I think that people are looking for some "magic
>bullet" in statistics (i.e
Dennis said
other than being able to say that the experimental group ... ON AVERAGE ...
had a mean that was about 1.11 times (control group sd units) larger than
the control group mean, which is purely DESCRIPTIVE ... what can you say
that is important?
However, can you say even that unless it
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Dennis Roberts wrote:
> see the article that focuses on this even if they do report effect sizes ... )
>
> what we need in all of this is REPLICATION ... and, the accumulation of
> evidence about the impact of independent variables that we consider to have
> important poten
Stan Brown wrote:
> Perhaps you might want to
> define it the first time on that page: SEM = standard error of the
> mean.
Good point. Done.
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPR
here are some data ... say we randomly assigned 30 Ss ... 15 to each
condition and found the following:
MTB > desc c1 c2
Descriptive Statistics: exp, cont
Variable N Mean Median TrMean StDevSE Mean
exp 15 26.13 27.00 26.00
At 02:33 PM 9/13/01 +0100, Thom Baguley wrote:
>Rolf Dalin wrote:
> > Yes it would be the same debate. No matter how small the p-value it
> > gives very little information about the effect size or its practical
> > importance.
>
>Neither do standardized effect sizes.
agreed ... of course, we woul
> The implausibly named aaaaaaaaa wrote:
> >
> > I would like to ask how to convert teragram to kilogram.
> > Thanks for helping~
> > Try
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#quantifiers
for a good rundown on this. Or multiply by 10^9.
( By the way, aa (may
Development of a scale, i.e., converting non-numeric attitudes (and other
non-numeric 'stuff') into a number scale, is no easy matter. So you
demonstrated. Some people will treat a 2 point scale as a dichotomy, skipping
gradations in between. Some people will treat a 5 point scale (true, origin
Hi
On 13 Sep 2001, Rolf Dalin wrote:
> Hi, this is about Jim Clark's reply to dennis roberts.
> > I'm not sure how "both informative" gets translated into "neither
> > very informative." Seems like a perverse way of thinking to me.
> > Moreover, your original question was "then what benefit is
Rolf Dalin wrote:
> Yes it would be the same debate. No matter how small the p-value it
> gives very little information about the effect size or its practical
> importance.
Neither do standardized effect sizes.
Thom
=
Instructions
Sorry, I misread the original and sent the teragram -> gram conversion.
D'oh!
Teragram -> kilogram is of course 10^9.
-Robert Dawson
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the
Hi, this is about Jim Clark's reply to dennis roberts.
> 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
James Ankeny wrote:
> 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
23 matches
Mail list logo
