The usual interpretation of a p is of "results this extreme or more extreme".
Teresa from Oregon wrote: >I was doing a little mental calisthenics today and got myself confused >about how this test is calculated. My (perhaps naive) understanding is >that all potential sets of results from, say, a 2x2 table are >calculated and then the exact probability of the actual observed >result occurring simply by chance is determined. This is why there is >no associated test statistic, just p. > >My question is: If the test is distributionless, wouldn't the >probability of all unique results be equal? Or...put another way...Is >Fisher's exact one of those sneaky nonparametrics that really does >rely upon an underlying distribution? > >Thanks. > > . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
