In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert J. MacG. Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (in part):
I'm saying that the entire concept of practical significance is not only
subjective, but limited to the extent of current knowledge. You may
regard a 0.01% effect at this point
Herman Rubin wrote:
and until recently,
scientists believed that their models could be exactly right.
but, as you wrote in another context
--
3 Oct 1998 08:07:23 -0500;
Message-ID:6v57ib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Normality is rarely a tenable hypothesis. Its usefulness as a means
of
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Peter Lewycky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've often been called upon to do a t-test with 5 animals in one group
and 4 animals in the other. The power is abysmally low and rarely do I
get a p less than 0.05. One of the difficulties that medical
researcher
have is
This has got to be one of the funniest things I have read on a stats
newsgroup. I'm sure its not really meant to be funny, but the thought
of truckloads upon truckload of rats arriving to satisfy power
requirements puts a highly amusing spin on the whole thing. :)
I am stifling an insane cackle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
said before, I don't think this can be seen as a problem with
hypothesis
testing; but it is a matter for hypothesis *testers*.
Nothing wrong with this,
Thom Baguley wrote:
Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I don't think so. I can think of many
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Peter Lewycky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've often been called upon to do a t-test with 5 animals in one
group and 4 animals in the other. The power is abysmally low and
rarely do I get a p less than 0.05. One
At 05:38 PM 10/17/00 -0700, David Heiser wrote:
The 5% is a historical arifact, the result of statistics being invented
before electronic computers were invented.
an artifact is some anomaly of the data ... but, how could 5% be considered
an artifact DUE to the lack of electronic computers?
Many posters to this thread have used the phrase "practical
significance". I find it only confuses things. Just so all of us
are
clear on what we're talking about, might we restrict ourselves to
the terms "statistical signficance" and "practical importance"?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get important significant effects, unimportant significant
effects, important non-significant effects and unimportant
non-significant effects.
I'll go for three out of four of these. But "important non-significant
--- Radford Neal wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get important significant effects, unimportant significant
effects, important non-significant effects and unimportant
non-significant effects.
I'll go for three out of four of these. But
"Richard M. Barton" wrote:
--- Radford Neal wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get important significant effects, unimportant significant
effects, important non-significant effects and unimportant
non-significant effects.
I'll go
In article 8sill5$gvf$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG. Dawson) wrote:
.
Fair enough: but I would argue that the right question is rarely "if
there were no effect whatsoever,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many posters to this thread have used the phrase "practical
significance". I find it only confuses things. Just so all of us
are
clear on what we're talking about, might we restrict ourselves to
the terms "statistical
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
thus, the idea is that 5% and/or 1% were "chosen" due to the tables
that
were available and not, some logical reasoning for these values?
i don't see any logic to the notion that 5% and/or 1% ... have any
special
nor
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can get important significant effects, unimportant significant
effects, important non-significant effects and unimportant
non-significant effects.
Radford Neal wrote:
I'll go for three out of four of these. But "important non-significant
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Thom Baguley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I don't
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
said before, I don't think this can be seen as a problem with
hypothesis
testing; but it is a matter for hypothesis *testers*.
Nothing wrong with this, but it might be a good time to review
I've often been called upon to do a t-test with 5 animals in one group
and 4 animals in the other. The power is abysmally low and rarely do I
get a p less than 0.05. One of the difficulties that medical researcher
have is with the notion of power and concomitant sample size. I make it
a point of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris: That's not what Jerry means. What he's saying is that if
your sample size is large enough, a difference may be statistically
significant (a term which has a very precise meaning, especially to
the Apostles of the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
dennis roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:06 PM 10/16/00 +, Peter Lewycky wrote:
It happens all the time in medicine. If I can show a p value 0.05 or
less the researchers are delighted. Whenever I can't produce a p of 0.05
or less they start looking for
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert J. MacG. Dawson) wrote:
Wrt to your example, it seems that the decision you are making about
practical importance is purely subjective.
What exactly do you mean by this? Are you saying that _my_
example is purely subjective
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: questions on hypothesis
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris: That's not what Jerry means. What he's saying is that if
your sample size is large enough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I don't think so. I can think of many examples in which statistical
inference plays an invaluable role in
In a post to EDSTAT-L, you wrote:
I believe you will find that most researchers in the sciences
accept the p-value as religion. In the report of the recent
British study on Type 2 diabetes, there was an effect which
was stated as "unimportant" because the p-value was .052.
Do you have a
It happens all the time in medicine. If I can show a p value 0.05 or
less the researchers are delighted. Whenever I can't produce a p of 0.05
or less they start looking for another statistician and will even
withhold a paper from publication.
"Simon, Steve, PhD" wrote:
In a post to EDSTAT-L,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris: That's not what Jerry means. What he's saying is that if
your sample size is large enough, a difference may be statistically
significant (a term which has a very precise meaning, especially to
the Apostles of the Holy 5%) but not large enough to be
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:56:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip
(2) absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Everyone who has done elementary statistics is aware of this edict. But
what if your power is very high and/or you have very large N? I have
always found it surprising
Gene Gallagher wrote:
Can someone recommend a good book on the history of statistics,
especially one focusing on Fisher's accomplishments. Fisher's
contributions and prickly personality are dealt with tangen-
tially in Provine's wonderful biography of Sewall Wright.
Surely, Fisher has
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ting Ting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A good example of a simple situation for which exact P values are
unavailable is the Behrens-Fisher problem (testing the equality of
normal means from normal populations with unequal variances). Some
might say we have
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
San [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would there be some cases which the p-value are so difficult to find
that it's nearly impossible? Is this a kind of limitation to the
hypothesis testing using p-value? Is there any substitute for the
p-value?
Thx for ur reply.
This is
In article 8s8egf$n5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I don't think so. I can think of many examples in which statistical
inference
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, inter alia:
I *would* argue that without some method to determine the likelihood of
a difference b/w two conditions you have no chance of determining
practical importance at all.
But hypothesis testing procedures do not establish any such
- Original Message -
From: Ting Ting [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: questions on hypothesis
A good example of a simple situation for which exact P values are
unavailable is the Behrens-Fisher problem (testing
As to Observational studies --
http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/~anderson/thompson1.html
This is a short article and long bibliography. The title is direct:
"326 Articles/Books Questioning the Indiscriminate Use of
Statistical Hypothesis Tests in Observational Studies"
(Compiled by William
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I don't think so. I can think of many examples in which statistical
inference plays an invaluable role in practical applications and
instrumentation,
I wrote:
(1) statistical significance usually is unrelated to practice
importance.
I meant to type "practical importance".
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES
one nice full issue of a journal about this general topic of hull
hypothesis testing that i came across recently is:
Research in the Schools, Vol 5, Number 2, Fall 1998 ...
you could contact jim mclean at ... jmclean@ etsu.edu ... and inquire about
obtaining a copy
we are in the process of
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, dennis roberts wrote in part:
one nice full issue of a journal about this general topic of
hull hypothesis testing ...
Dealing with problems in naval architecture, one presumes?
-- Don.
San wrote:
Would there be some cases which the p-value are so difficult to find
that it's nearly impossible?
I'm tempted to say "not under a randomization model" but, yes, there
are many problems for which P values are not readily available.
Perhaps P values are unavailable for *most*
40 matches
Mail list logo
