In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dennis Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>sorry for late reply
>ranking is the LEAST useful thing you can do ... so, i would never START
>with simple ranks
>any sort of an absolute kind of scale ... imperfect as it is ... would
>generally be better ...
You can say that again!
>one can always convert more detailed scale values INTO ranks at the end if
>necessary BUT, you cannot go the reverse route
This cannot be overemphasized. We see much of this; how valid
are those of the current IQ scales, where the values are given
by converting the raw scores to a normal distribution? This is
also done in other tests of this type; we need to teach in our
beginning courses not to transform unless one has a REALLY good
reason to do so, and obtaining normality is not one.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the
problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
