Thanks very much for your helpful response.
1) My factors are continous. I have multiple responses. Some are
continous and some are categorical. I need to optimize my resonses.
The main region that they are interested is for A between-35 and 95
and for B between 900 and 1750.
In addition they wan
Your point is well taken, and I didn't mean to imply dishonesty either --
the term "fudged" was a poor choice, but I meant it in the sense of
manipulation or filtering, not necessarily conscious, and I mentioned that
it was an assertion.
Rich Strauss
At 06:13 PM 2/5/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Your po
I think some of this is a matter of vocabulary. Do you say 'one tailed
test' or 'one sided test'? (Ditto for 'two'.) People seem to use the two
phrases fairly interchangeably. In this context, it does not matter
whether you think of the F distribution as having two 'ends' - and you
can use one or
Your point is a good one, but as a side issue, let
me object to the word "fudged." It implies
chicanery, which is not something that even Fisher
cared to imply. No one will ever know why Mendel's
results appear as they do, but It was not
necessarily with an intent to mislead. An argument
can be ma
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, dennis roberts wrote:
> would this be like the F being less than 1 ... in a regular anova???
> mean difference not even varying like we would expect them to by chance
> if null were true?
Well, it _might_ be. Depends on what hypothesis was being tested,
doesn't it? And s
distributions are inherently TWO ended ... at least i have never seen one
that had, say ... an upper end but no lower end ...
how a particular significance TEST uses a distribution ... one end or both
... is a function of how the test statistic is defined
==
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:26:46 +0900, "rjkim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > hi, all.
> >
> > Isn't a chi-squre test inherently a 'one-sided sig. test'?
>
> The chi-square is to F as the normal z is to t.
>
> t^2 (xx degrees of freedom) equals F (1, xx degrees of
would this be like the F being less than 1 ... in a regular anova??? mean
difference not even varying like we would expect them to by chance if null
were true?
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
In conjunction with the other comments that have already been made on this
topic, I'd simply note that testing the left tail of a chi-square
distribution in the case of a goodness-of-fit test is equivalent to testing
whether the fit is "better" than expected. This was the basis a few years
ago of
POSTDOCTORAL TRAINEESHIP IN QUANTITATIVE METHODS: UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT
URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
NIMH funded training in quantitative methods for behavioral and social
research. Appointment commences July or August 2001. Seminars on advanced
topics including multivariate analysis, multidimensi
The fourth edition was reviewed very favorably in
Technometrics.
Farnsworth, D.L. (1990). Review of Elementary
Statistics. 32-4. 456-457.
"Domangue, Rickie James" wrote:
>
> Hi,
> We are in the process of reviewing textbooks
> for a general audience elementary stats class.
> The book by Triol
Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I agree, you have been thinking about it "too much."
MUCH too much
: I think you have to take Stevens's hierarchy of scaling more lightly.
even to the point of forgetting it
=
Instruction
In his post, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul W. Jeffries) wrote:
> I have a question that must have a simple response...but I don't see
> it right now. The textbooks say that a ratio scale has the
> properties of an interval scale plus a true zero point.
Okay.
> This implies that any scale that has a
>Ailan Chubb wrote:
>>
>> In the Oct. 9, 2000 New Yorker (p. 33), James Surowiecki wrote of an "old
>> B-school stunt, in which a professor presents his students with a jar full
>> of jelly beans and asks them to guess how many there are. Their answers are
>> always wildly inaccurate, but the aver
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:26:46 +0900, "rjkim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> hi, all.
>
> Isn't a chi-squre test inherently a 'one-sided sig. test'?
The chi-square is to F as the normal z is to t.
t^2 (xx degrees of freedom) equals F (1, xx degrees of freedom).
z^2 equals chi-squared.
F is "t
Rich Ulrich wrote:
>
> (1) There is (something like) "Is the right answer given by someone
> with a good IQ?" I think that we are all agreed that (C) should meet
> that requirement. Further, I imagine that the item was validated
> *statistically* by this standard -- marking "C" goes along w
Hi,
We are in the process of reviewing textbooks
for a general audience elementary stats class.
The book by Triola - Elementary Statistics , 8th edition
has come
under consideration. Does anybody know of
any recent reviews of this book in The
American Statistician or elsewhere? Thanks
Rick
Ailan Chubb wrote:
>
> In the Oct. 9, 2000 New Yorker (p. 33), James Surowiecki wrote of an "old
> B-school stunt, in which a professor presents his students with a jar full
> of jelly beans and asks them to guess how many there are. Their answers are
> always wildly inaccurate, but the average
>On 29 Jan 2001 10:29:36 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dennis roberts) wrote:
>> "P values, or significance levels, measure the strength of the evidence
>> against the null hypothesis; the smaller the P value, the stronger the
>> evidence against the null hypothesis"
>>
>> 1. does the general stat
Of course, if p1=p2 the answer is Binomial(n1+n2,p1).
Otherwise, there is no "easy" answer (i.e., no standard distribution).
Jon Cryer
At 05:45 AM 2/5/01 GMT, you wrote:
>Kumara Sastry wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Suppose, X ~ Binomial(n1,p1), Y~Binomial(n2,p2) , and X and Y are
>
not easy reading but, one of the best treatments on levels of measurement
and statistical analysis is by warren sarle ...
ftp://ftp.sas.com/pub/neural/measurement.html
At 09:23 PM 2/4/01 -0600, Jay Warner wrote:
>Time to get down & dirty on this one. I think the logic/word concepts
>is/are in
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001, "June" wrote:
> Isn't a chi-square test inherently a 'one-sided sig. test'?
Not inherently. The common (most common?) application, in testing the
hypothesis of independence of classification systems in a two-way table
of frequencies, is a one-sided test, of course. But t
On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Jay Warner wrote (inter alia), replying to Paul
Jeffries:
> Say I look at a pressure gauge. A clear 0 (absolute zero pressure -
> space), and measurable, even incremented units. Increase in pressure
> from 100 psi to 101 psi is the same increase as from 0.1 psi to 1.1 ps
You've had a good "flash response" from Jay Warner.
Other short answers embedded in original query below:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have two factors A and B and I want to run a DOE to study my
> response. My factor B is at 3 levels; (900, 1450 and 2000) , my factor
> A
hi, all.
Isn't a chi-squre test inherently a 'one-sided sig. test'?
I just read a paper claiming that it uses a 'one-sided' rather than
'two-sided' test. So it regards a chi-square value of 3.3 (df=1) is
significant at the level of 0.05. (As you all know, the critical value
of chi-square (df=1)
25 matches
Mail list logo
