y shortcomings, it is widely-available.
> >
> >
> >Dr Graham D. Smith
> >Psychology Division
> >School of Behavioural Studies
> >University College Northampton
> >Boughton Green Road
> >Northampton
> >NN2 7AL
> >
> >Tel (01604) 735500
you need a Ph.D. in statistics to (safely) do
>statistics with Excel. The LAST people in the world who should be
>using Excel for statistics are beginners.
of course, on the OTHER side of the coin ... the procedure for RANK in
minitab (for example) either ranks things correctly or bassackwar
I agree with much of what has been said about the shortcomings of Excel.
After all this strand of discussion was arose from problems with its ranking
procedure. However, I don't think that users should rely on Excel's
statistical functions or analysis tools. Rather, I think that users should
treat
RIght on, Dennis!
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, dennis roberts wrote in part:
> ... it [Graham Smith's comment (see below)] is comparable to saying
> that since everyone might have notepad on their machine, that is the
> way they should do word processing. we need to alert students to
> general tools
Someone found another bug in Excel's statistics routines. Someone
else came up with a clever alternative. What you have to think about
is all the bugs you have not noticed yet. Anybody can do statistic
with Minitab, but you need a Ph.D. in statistics to (safely) do
statistics with Excel. The
>- Original Message -
>From: Jon Cryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:54 PM
>Subject: Re: Rank Awful
>
>
>> I guess "nice" is in the eye of the beholder. I view this as
>> another goo
PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Jon Cryer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Rank Awful
> I guess "nice" is in the eye of the beholder. I view this as
> another good reason NOT to use Excel f
I guess "nice" is in the eye of the beholder. I view this as
another good reason NOT to use Excel for Statistics!
Please use the right tool for the job.
Jon Cryer
At 05:58 PM 11/26/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Very nice solution.
>It can be reduced even to the last part:
>RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A
Thanks to Jay Wang and Ivan Zezula's ranking formulae (see "Rank Awful"
postings) I have produced an Excel spreadsheet to calculate both correlation
coefficients for Pogo's data.
> 1. I have two sets of scores which are related to
Very nice solution.
It can be reduced even to the last part:
RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)-1)/2)
Ivan
> You can modify the rank() function using the following one:
>
> IF(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)=1, RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1),
> RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)-1)/2)
>
> In this settin
You can modify the rank() function using the following one:
IF(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)=1, RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1),
RANK(A1,A$1:A$6,1)+(COUNTIF(A$1:A$6,A1)-1)/2)
In this setting, the data range is A1:A6 (as the example you mentioned in your
email), and ranking is in the ascending order, e.g. smaller numbe
I often use MS Excel to perform statistical analyses but I have been unable
to use it for simple non-parametric procedures (e.g., Friedman's test,
Mann-Whitney test) because the RANK() function does not deal with ties
properly. For example, Excel would rank scores as follows;
Score
12 matches
Mail list logo
