--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB > > <no_reply@> wrote: <snip> > > > Yeah, new...it's perfectly legitimate to "not > > > count" an anomalous event like *that*! What > > > are you *thinking*? If you bitch about something > > > as miniscule as disregarding data because it > > > doesn't fit the all-important expectations, > > > why you could set a precedent. <snip> > > As I said in an earlier post, I'd sure like > > new morning to elucidate what he thinks is > > wrong with this explanation of why the fact > > that the murder rate jumped during one 36- > > hour period should not be considered significant > > with regard to the overall study results. > > The real problem with the study is the design itself. > If it had a better design than a simple pre-post > (which makes no sense for research of this sort) non > of these question would be discussed.
Are you saying the 36-hour hike in the murder rate *was* an anomaly and that it *was* legitimate not to take it into account? In any case, it's been my impression that the study design used quite sophisticated statistical methods (such as time-series analysis) for evaluating trends over a five-year period so as to try to isolate variations that had no explanation other than that of the presence of the experimental group. (This was rarely reflected in media accounts, however.) What kind of study design would you have used that would have avoided these sorts of questions?
