In sci.stat.math Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9dpcei$qcf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In article <9deiug$l0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
In article <9dpcei$qcf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <9deiug$l0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>2.) The two row (col)marginals are treated as independent; and
In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9deiug$l0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>2.) The two row (col)marginals are treated as independent; and the
>>observed table under the null hypothesis is regarded as
>>being the result of two
In sci.stat.math Juha Puranen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Hhen N is small this is not true. Here a small example By Survo
the example is irreelevaant; there are different tests of the same
hypothesis eg do a t test with only the first 10 observations. Both tests
are valid, the large n test is
Elliot Cramer wrote:
>
> In sci.stat.consult Juha Puranen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> Please clarify what is meant by "the distribution does not
> :> involve [the fixed marginals]". I am not clear on this:
> :> the Fisher test statistic (hypergeometric upper tail probability)
> :> cert
In sci.stat.consult Juha Puranen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> Please clarify what is meant by "the distribution does not
:> involve [the fixed marginals]". I am not clear on this:
:> the Fisher test statistic (hypergeometric upper tail probability)
:> certainly *does* depend on the fixed ma
Ronald Bloom wrote:
>
> In sci.stat.consult Elliot Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In sci.stat.consult Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Herman as usual is absolutely correct; the validity of the Fisher test is
> > analagous to the validity of regression tests which are derived
>
In sci.stat.edu Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It has become the custom, in epidemiological reports
> to use always the hypergeometric inference test --
> The Fisher Exact Test -- when treating 2x2 tables
> arising from all manner of experimental setups -- e.g.
Only for tables with s
In sci.stat.consult Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Herman as usual is absolutely correct; the validity of the Fisher test is
analagous to the validity of regression tests which are derived
conditional on x but, since the distribution does not involve x, are valid
unconditionally even if t
- I offer a suggestion of a reference.
On 10 May 2001 17:25:36 GMT, Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip, much detail ]
> It has become the custom, in epidemiological reports
> to use always the hypergeometric inference test --
> The Fisher Exact Test -- when treating 2x2 tables
>
In sci.stat.consult Elliot Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In sci.stat.consult Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Herman as usual is absolutely correct; the validity of the Fisher test is
> analagous to the validity of regression tests which are derived
> conditional on x but, since the
In sci.stat.edu Herman Rubin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Each one of these probability setups 1-3 gives rise to a somewhat
>>different small-sample inferential test. In particular,
>>the schemes (1),(2),(3) give rise to distributions conditioned
>>on 3, 2, and 1 fixed parameters respectively.
In article <9deiug$l0h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ronald Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Significance tests for 2x2 tables require that the single observed
>table be regarded as if it were, (under the null hypothesis of
>"uniformity" or "independence") but a single instance drawn at
>random from a
13 matches
Mail list logo
