On 27 Feb 2002 14:14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Roberts) wrote: > At 04:11 PM 2/27/02 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote: > > >Categorizing the values into a few categories labeled, > >"none, almost none, ...." is one way to convert your scores. > >If those labels do make sense.
> well, if 750 has the same numerical sort of meaning as 0 (unit wise) ... in > terms of what is being measured then i would personally not think so SINCE, > the categories above 0 will encompass very wide ranges of possible values [ ... ] Frankly, the question is about meaning of numbers, and I would to ask it. I don't expect a bunch of zeros, with 3 as median, and values up to 750. Numbers like that *might* reflect, say, the amount of gold detected in some assays. Then, you want to know the handful of locations with numbers near 750. If any of the numbers at all are big enough to be interesting. Data like those are *not* apt to be congenial for taking means. And if 750 is meaningful, using ranks is apt to be nonsensical, too. In this example, the median was 3. Does *that* represent a useful interval from 0? - if so, *that* tells me scaling or scoring is probably not well-chosen. Is there a large range of 'meaning' between 0 and non-zero? Is there a range of meaning concealed within zero? "Zero children" as outcome of a marriage can reflect (a) a question being asked too early; (b) unfortunate happenstance; or (c) personal choice - categories, within 0, and none of them are necessarily a good 'interval' from the 1, 2, 3... answers. But that (further) depends on what questions are being asked. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ =================================================================
