On 21 Jul 2000 07:57:42 GMT, Ron Bloom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
< snip, including citation ... >
> I was responding to Mr. Ullrich's implication that while,
> on the one hand the observed "chi-squared" value can be interpreted as
> a test statistic, on the other hand, the observed "odds ratio" is
> not a test statistic but a measure of effect size.
>
> I was simply pointing out that any combination of a,b,c,d
> can be, in principle, be used as a "test statistic", since,
< snip, rest >
Hey, loosen up....
Are you still hoping to learn something?
I was pointing to an old distinction (I did not invent it), which
various people have used, and one that answers your question:
Statistics that incorporate the N are sometimes "test statistics"
(which I did put in quotes, before), as contrasted to "effect size"
measurements. They earn those labels because they most readily tell
you one sort of thing of the other.
And they each tell you something that is a little different, and that
"scales" differently, from just having the p-level.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
