dennis roberts wrote:
> i was not really looking for the "crafty" way but ... a simple and
> direct interpretation (if one IS possible)
>
> say ... we have some concern about whether the average IQ is still 100
> in the general population ... as test publishers say (of course,
> herman rubin would say that we know that this null is NOT really
> (exactly) true ... but, let's put this aside for the moment)
>
> now, we take (if this is really possible) a random sample of 100 ...
> do a simple t test with the null being 100 and ... the p value comes
> out to be ..08 ... TEST A
>
> or, this test turned up a p value of .02 ... TEST B
>
> or, this test turned up a p value of .008 ... TEST C
>
> assume for a moment that we did things correctly in terms of sampling,
> run the right test, assumptions met, etc.
>
> are we able to accurately say ... that if we had the results as in
> TEST C .... that we are more convinced that the null of 100 is NOT
> true ... than for TEST B or TEST A?
>
> no ifs, ands, or buts or it depends on this or that ... just straight
> talking ... can we say this?
Yes. So shoot me., already!
A technically correct conclusion is: The sample of 100 has a mu
different than 100. there is a 0.08 prob ability (or 0.02, or 0.008)
that this statement is false.
Have I not said the same thing? As p gets small, we are more confident
that the null hypothesis is not valid.
Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
