--- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > It was NOT excluded from the data. The weekly AVERAGE was the > > > > > weekly average with no data excluded. The SIGNIFICANCE of the > > > > > outlier was dismissed because it was only one data point > > > > > amongst many and wasn't repeated and in fact was reversed > > > > > the next week (20 one week and 4 the next). > > > > > > > > See footnote 3. > > > > > > > > 3. After removing the outlier of June 22, Poisson regression > > > > analysis indicated there was no significant difference in the > > > > level of homicides in June and July 1993 from the remainder of > > > > the year. > > > > > > Ah you're right. Interesting that something that changed the > > > average so slightly over a 2-week period would have a significant > > > effect. It suggests that the murder-rate trended upward slightly > > > even without the outler. > > > > Lawson, this was a separate analysis, not the > > main analysis. It was done to answer the > > specific question about the nature of the murder > > rate. > > > > And I don't understand why you say it suggests the > > murder rate trended upward even without the outlier. > > If there was no significant change without excluding > the outlier, they wouldn't have excluded the outlier.
No capish, sorry. I'm saying they *didn't* exclude the outlier from the main analysis. They excluded it in this separate Poisson regression analysis to see what the murder rate by itself looked like without the outlier. We really need to get hold of the study to say anything coherent about it.
