On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote:
> don ... no wonder students go bananas in statistics ... if we "sink" to
> this level of discussion about a formula ... a formula that really has
> so little utility ... how much time do we spend on the really important
> ones?
I would have thought
(on the subject of point-biserial correlation)
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 09:57:42 -0400, Art Kendall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if the term PBS didn't stick, I would hope that somewhere in a first
> course a student would retain the concept that a correlation between gender and
> height means
Even if the term PBS didn't stick, I would hope that somewhere in a first
course a student would retain the concept that a correlation between gender and
height means the same thing as a difference in mean height for the genders.
This helps lay the foundation for later realizing that ANOVA is a s
At 12:25 AM 10/23/00 -1000, Daniel Blaine wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by a "no brainer" since I've
> "interpreted your interpretations" to suggest that concepts in
> and around parameter estimation and hypothesis testing are not
> easy ones for our students
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote:
> don ... no wonder students go bananas in statistics ... if we "sink" to
> this level of discussion about a formula ... a formula that really has so
> little utility ... how much time do we spend on the really important ones?
>
"(R)eally imp
don ... no wonder students go bananas in statistics ... if we "sink" to
this level of discussion about a formula ... a formula that really has so
little utility ... how much time do we spend on the really important ones?
i would submit that for most intro courses ... where correlation is
discu
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote:
> At 06:14 AM 10/21/00 +, Eric Bohlman wrote:
< snip, a couple of quibbles answered by Eric >
> >2a) It demonstrates that variations in the relative sizes of the group
> >will result in variations in the magnitude of the correlation, even i
dennis roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 06:14 AM 10/21/00 +, Eric Bohlman wrote:
>>
>>1) It demonstrates that a correlation problem in which one variable is
>>dichotomous is equivalent to a two-group mean-difference problem.
> maybe you can make this point but, to a typical student ...
At 06:14 AM 10/21/00 +, Eric Bohlman wrote:
>
>1) It demonstrates that a correlation problem in which one variable is
>dichotomous is equivalent to a two-group mean-difference problem.
maybe you can make this point but, to a typical student ... i would say
this equivalence would be lost
>
>2