In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
EugeneGall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I too think that the odds ratio is the appropriate way to present
the data, but after looking at these results, I can appreciate why
the Gallup organization didn't do so.
The data on racial favorability ratings which Gallup
Rich Ulrich wrote:
I am not positive, but
I think I would have objected to equal % change
as =proportionate= by the time I finished algebra in high school.
I know I have objected to similar confusion, on principled
grounds, since I learned about Odds Ratios.
I suspect that the original
Eugene Gall wrote:
His definition of proportionate would mean that if a group's approval of
Bush went from 1% to 31%, that too would be proportionate. The relative
odds would be one way of expressing the changes in proportions, but the
absolute difference (60% to 90% is roughly propotionate
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Dennis Roberts wrote:
if the polls used similar ns in the samples ... i disagree
now, if the white sample was say 600 and the black sample was 100 ... i
MIGHT be more likely to agree with the comment below
consider white goes 10% to 15% up 50%, 5%pts
1. well, one can consider proportionate ... equal change VALUES ... and i
think that is one legitimate way to view it ... which is how the video guy
was talking about it ...
2. one could consider proportionate ... equal change from the BASE ... and
i think that is legitimate too ... this is
one traditional way of comparing changes in percentages to to transform to
z-scores and then subtracting. I think this is what signal-detection people
call D-prime.
Elliot Cramer wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Dennis Roberts wrote:
finally ... i think we are making a mountain out of a
Perhaps it's just a matter of getting a meaningful denominator. Certainly the
100% of each group which the Gallop presentation uses seems to do violence to the
concept of proportional. As Elliot Cramer writes it also doesn't make much sense
to use the percent approval before 9/11. But isn't it
The Gallup organization posted a video to explain why the the increase in
black's job approval for Bush is 'proportionate' to the increase among whites.
Both increased by about 30% (60 to 90 for whites, mid thirties to roughly 70%
for blacks), so the increase is proportionate, not
there are two sets of data ... one for georgeDUBU ... and the elder george bush
here is what i glean from the charts
for george w ... the EVENT was sept 11 ... for the elder george bush ...
the EVENT was the gulf war ... and both were before and after ratings
1. whites approval rating for
His definition of proportionate would mean that if a group's approval of Bush
went from 1% to 31%, that too would be proportionate. The relative odds would
be one way of expressing the changes in proportions, but the absolute
difference (60% to 90% is roughly propotionate to an increase from 33%
10 matches
Mail list logo
