Jerry,
I, of course, have no problem with randomization
tests "in general," nor did I ever claim to.
Best,
Jim Steiger
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:40:30 GMT, Jerry Dallal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Radford Neal wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jerry Dallal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > We often have a group of individuals who are judged comparable in
>> > responsibilities and performance. In such cases, it *may* be
>> > appropriate to use permutation methods. The rationale would be:
>> > There is some variation in salary due to situation-specific
>> > "whatever", so we don't expect everyone to be making exactly the
>> > same money. One way to attempt to detect discrimination against a
>> > particular group is to ask whether their salaries are consistent
>> > with what one would expect assigning salaries at random without
>> > regard to group membership.
>>
>> That would test whether one had evidence that salaries were related in
>> some way to group membership. It would NOT test whether any such
>> relationship is due to "discrimination". It would do so only under
>> the assumption that there were no relevant differences between groups
>> other than salary. That is of course exactly what the report under
>> discussion is disputing.
>
>The sections of particular post to which I replied did not focus on
>the report that started the thread, but rather on Jim's comments
>questioning randomization tests in general.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
