"Arthur J. Kendall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > 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. > > > >
IMHO, you could look at Fisher's as a nonparametric test. Conditional on the observed marginal totals, you can find all possible arrangements and compare your table to that distribution much the same as any randomization experiment? So, it also seems to me that you could lock down, say, the row totals and do something similar. Or, just lock down on the total N. Maybe a bootstrap? Warren May University of Mississippi Medical Center . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
