ok thanks realized after I sent the email that you were talking to Tim, but i am glad to hear that I do indeed semi-remember this stuff. I m kinda curious about the calculation they did a thousand times if you are able to formulate a description. But it doesn't need to be right now. Take your time, and hey :) fifty words even.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > You are not the only one. On my desk at home is a notebook with all my > notes for the next version of my meta-analysis application. 150 pages and > counting - most of which are botched formulae for calculating statistical > power effect sizes and converting obtained probability values to effect > sizes. Makes me wish at times I stayed with single case designs. > > 10 word or less that is really difficult. Can I go for 30? > > But you've essentially got the idea. I left out a lot, range estimation and > correction for error andthat sort of thing, but yes. > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > what not really -- the meaning of standard deviations? If so yeah you are > > right, I think but what Maureen and I said is an .... ok 10 words or > less > > version. > > > > In this case p=0.011 so theoretically if they did everything else right, > > these results should replicate 99% of the time. And not, 1%. > > > > I realize that's it's not a given that the 1% is random or that it won't > > occur the next time you repeat the experiment, but I think that is a > rather > > fine distinction for our purposes. Kinda like the difference between > > Springfield and Tyson's Corner, as seen from California, yanno? If I > don't > > have that right then fine, tell me, but if you're going to crank up your > > statistical powers I'd rather hear an explanation of that leave one out > > thing they did a thousand times, because that part I do not understand at > > ALL. > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Not really. It depends on the stats that are used. When looking at > >> statistical results, the way to interpret statistical significance is as > >> follows. Let's say the researchers found the two groups showed a > >> significant difference of p < 0.05 . This means that if you > replicated > >> the study an infinite number of times, 95% of these results would fall > very > >> close to the difference found in the first study. How meaningful that > >> spread is depends on the standard error of the studies, and other > factors. > >> It also mean that in order to show a significant difference with a > smaller > >> sample you'd need a much larger difference to achieve statistical > >> significance. > >> > >> So you can make very accurate predictions based on fairly small samples. > It > >> all depends on the statistical power of your experiment. I'm too burned > out > >> to really discuss it now, but if interested Wikipedia has a pretty good > >> explanation of it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power > >> > >> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > The sampling of 90 people is really really small. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis > at > >> >> all for the crap you've been talking. > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: > >> >> > > >> >> > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat > >> >> > you with experience > >> >> > > >> >> > . > >> >> > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 > >> people > >> >> > >> and 28 people. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- > I'd > >> >> call > >> >> > it > >> >> > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same > >> >> hypothesis. > >> >> > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug > >> are a > >> >> > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's > >> methodology. > >> >> > And, > >> >> > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them > >> may > >> >> > have > >> >> > > said in an interview... > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >> PURE BS! > >> >> > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything > they > >> >> > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might > have > >> said > >> >> > if > >> >> > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but > >> let's > >> >> > cut > >> >> > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. > I > >> >> > suppose > >> >> > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or > >> you) > >> >> > > seriously at this point. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > >> >> > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're > inferior. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's > >> completely > >> >> > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is > >> wrong > >> >> > > > with > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346964 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
