Akasha, did they use an interupted time series analysis? I'm assuming with my baby stats background that this would have been appropriate.
--- akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words, I don't believe akasha is in a > > position even to guess at flaws in the study or to > > say the results didn't reflect the reality unless > he > > knows *exactly* what methodology the researchers > > used. He has to be able to see the published > study > > before he can make a relevant evaluation. > > The summary appears quite clear -- they did not use > the control > variables in the primary analysis. I don't need to > read the full > study, which I seek to, to raise concerns about that > and other things > stated in the summary. And I can speculate as to the > data issues they > faced, having climbed that hill many times in > various analysis > projects, and why they did what they did (as > outlined in the summary). > Speculation is not exactly a searing critique. > > On the same token, I suppose its hard for you to > defend the study > without having it at hand. > > (Just curious, did you read the full study in the > past? But no longer > have a copy?) > > > I'm not at all sure he can come up with his own > > method, run all the numbers, get different > results, > > and on that basis, without knowing what > methodology > > they were using, say there was something wrong > with > > their results. > > I guess, if thats what i were doing, above. Which I > am not. Nice > strawman. First I am using the most standard and > conventional methods > for this type of study -- multi-variate regression. > I did not suddenly > invent regression for this analysis. Second, who > knows if I will get > the same or a different result than them. Its a work > in progress. I > shared some preliminary exploratory results, based > on a surprising > strong little initial model. As I get better data, I > will undoubtedly > be able to develop better models. Third, I am > approaching the analysis > from different angles, more angles perhaps, than > they did. Thats a > good thing. For example, looking at personal crimes, > using a unified > model for the complete analysis, etc. Fourth, I am > not using my > analysis as a basis to critique the oringinal study. > I am doing it to > understand the ME and verify or reject it based on > the actual numbers. > For now, I would rather debate my own analysis than > some analysis done > 12 years ago in which the data used is not > apparently readily > available, nor the study itself. > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > --------------------~--> > Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make > Yahoo! your home page > http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM > --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Or go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > and click 'Join This Group!' > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
