i would say you have a larger DESIGN problem than the statistical one you describe (ie, variability being less the second time versus the first)
this is a classic case of a one group pre and post study, with a "treatment" inbetween ... with NO control group that does NOT get the treatment you want to, of course, show that the treatment made them more homogenous, but ... there are any number of reasons why their variability could be changed at post ... compared to pre ... that have nothing to do with the training they got so, are you trying to coffer some "proof" that your inbetween training made a difference or that, simply ... when people score a second batch sometime after a first batch ... their ratings become more homogeneous? At 08:10 AM 3/14/02 -0500, Gigi Lipori wrote: >I have a scenario where three people were set off to score 100+ cases -- >giving each a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (categories of disease). These folks >were subsequently educated and then given 100+ different cases for which >they did the same exercise. The theory is that the post-education set of >observations will be more consistent across observers. > >================================================================= have you just looked at the standard deviations of the two sets of data? how different are they, if any? Dennis Roberts, 208 Cedar Bldg., University Park PA 16802 <Emailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> WWW: http://roberts.ed.psu.edu/users/droberts/drober~1.htm AC 8148632401 . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
