Yes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Glenn Barnett wrote:
One n in Glen.
> OK, I see what you were getting at - but I still disagree, if it is
> understood that we are talking about large samples.
Your original comment that I was replying to
Glenn Barnett wrote:
>
> But the larger the sample size, the nearer the r.e. will be to the a.r.e.,
> right?
>
> That is, the large sample power properties depend on the original
> distribution, and the CLT does *not* save you from a bad a.r.e.
and again:
>
> If you're sampling from a distrib
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG. Dawson) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Glenn Barnett wrote:
>
> > > (1) normality is rarely important, provided the sample sizes are
> > > largish. The larger the less important.
> >
> > The a.r.e won't change with larger samples, so I
Glenn Barnett wrote:
> > (1) normality is rarely important, provided the sample sizes are
> > largish. The larger the less important.
>
> The a.r.e won't change with larger samples, so I disagree here.
I don't follow. Asymptotic relative efficiency is a limit as sample
size
"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" wrote:
>
> Voltolini wrote:
> >
> > Hi, I am Biologist preparing a class on experiments in ecology including
> > a short and simple text about how to use and to choose the most commom
> > statistical tests (chi-square, t tests, ANOVA, correlation and regression).
> >
> >
Voltolini wrote:
> >> Hi, I am Biologist preparing a class on experiments in ecology including
> a short and simple text about how to use and to choose the most commom
> statistical tests (chi-square, t tests, ANOVA, correlation and regression).
>
> I am planning to include the idea that testing
On 12 Oct 2001 11:14:54 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lise DeShea) wrote:
> Re robustness of the between-subjects ANOVA, I obtained permission from Dr.
> Rand Wilcox to copy three pages from his book, "New Statistical Procedures
> for the Social Sciences," and place them on a webpage for my student
At 01:44 PM 10/12/01 -0400, Lise DeShea wrote:
>I tell my students that the ANOVA is not robust to violation of the equal
>variances assumption, but that it's a stupid statistic anyway. All it can
>say is either, "These means are equal," or "There's a difference somewhere
>among these means,
Lise advised "I tell my students that the ANOVA is not
robust to violation of the equal variances assumption, but that it's a stupid
statistic anyway. All it can say is either, "These means are equal," or "There's a difference somewhere among these
means, but I can't tell you where it is.
Re robustness of the between-subjects ANOVA, I obtained
permission from Dr. Rand Wilcox to copy three pages from his book,
"New Statistical Procedures for the Social Sciences," and place
them on a webpage for my students. He cites research showing that
with four groups of 50 observations each and
At 12:59 PM 10/12/01 -0300, you wrote:
>While consulting people from depts of statistics about this, a few of them
>were arguing that these assumption testing are just a "legend" and that
>there is no problem in not respecting them !
note: you should NOT respect any stat expert who says that the
Voltolini wrote:
>
> Hi, I am Biologist preparing a class on experiments in ecology including
> a short and simple text about how to use and to choose the most commom
> statistical tests (chi-square, t tests, ANOVA, correlation and regression).
>
> I am planning to include the idea that testin
12 matches
Mail list logo
