Ron...from our buddy Dan...have fun with this one. ________________________________
From: Lofald, Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 2:00 PM To: Lehman, David; Ron Carson Subject: RE: [OTlist] Interesting Stats Howdy David, Howdy Ron We might not be sitting at the lunch table but the good conversation continues. As the Irish saying goes, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join" It appears to be that there are about 6 different concepts in play. David's comments about taking all of the variables en' mass and seeing what regression would tell us. Yep-folks do this all of the time. For example, I was involved trying to find lead indicators of newborn deaths at Univ. of Florida Hospital. There were 1400 independent variables and 1 dependent variable (death/life). We hunted around for months looking for best predictive sets of predictors. The approach to this work was, "if it works, it works." However, this is nothing more than mainframe level data grubbing. It can never tell us anything scientifically definitive because the alpha level is astronomical. However, it might give insight on a place to look with tools that are more sophisticated. Invariably, meaningful finds with first-order relationships are rare events. The good stuff is going to emerge out of finding important suppressor and mediator variables at work. In addition, most of the variables will probably not be in a linear relationship with each other (especially not with human beings). With regression, you can check for suppressor and mediator variables and you can test polynomial solutions --- however-to get to the good stuff, we would probably have use multi-variate tools. At the broader level - the two of you have an ontological & mathematical conversation combined (I love it). Let's look at the passage, "All humans are unique." What does that statement mean? Every part of every human is unlike every part of every other human? If that were the case, and we used Set Theory, we would have 121 billion non-intersecting circles. If that were the case, not only would science be impossible, but so also preclude the possibility of language and culture. If by, "All humans are unique," we mean, that some part of my circle does not overlap with your circle - we are now onto something important. Now we can ask how much of our two Venn circles overlap and do not overlap. This is expression we have with a Pearson product-moment correlation of p = .80, which means that 64% of the variance in one variable can be predicted by the variance of the other circle. But what happens when there are ten of us. How do our circles overlap now (we are talking about the ephemeral phenomological/psychological variables that you guys are talking about). If we look at enough people can we find patterns among what initially appeared discretely idiosyncratic? [[Oh gee - I cannot finish this response this week but I should would like to take it up with you guys another time. You are drilling down to one of the most interesting and important pieces of social science. Dan Daniel R. Lofald, PhD Staff Development Coordinator Chippewa Valley Technical College 620 W. Clairemont Ave., Eau Claire, WI 54701-6162 Phone 715-852-1328 Fax 715-833-6451 ________________________________ From: Lehman, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:54 PM To: Lofald, Dan Subject: FW: [OTlist] Interesting Stats Ron remembers you.....well! More thoughts? ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ron Carson Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 8:42 PM To: Lehman, David Subject: Re: [OTlist] Interesting Stats Given that you have a PhD, and if I remember, you and Dan L. frequently talked about this stuff, I feel that I am definitely out-classed!! <lol>. But, being the brave, (uh, stupid) person that I am, I will continue wading in the deep end of the pool. It seems that regression analysis looks at individual variables. But we know that people are not just collection of individual variables. We are after all, greater then the sum of our parts. How does regression analysis look at the SUM of the variables? Also, is it possible to quantify a subjective feeling? I know this is done with pain scales, but the subjective nature of such scales renders them almost useless for comparisons sake. In other words, my reported pain of 9 is total meaningless when COMPARED to your reported pain of 9. Lastly, just because someone has a history of any of the variables, in and of itself, that history is meaningless. For example, just because someone has a history of total hip arthroplasty, that doesn't mean they will need adaptations to dress their lower body. Ok, one more "lastly". You said: david> The more variables, the more chances for your results occuring david> because of poor internal validity Are you saying that the greater the number of variables, the less likely you can predict the results? If so, they I maintain that the number of variable affecting patient outcomes is infinite and thus you can never truly predict the outcomes. Keep in mind that I refer to patients, not to procedures. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lehman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD> I am not surprised you disagree, Ron! Thats what makes us get along so well! LD> I think you walked right into what I wanted to get across: LD> Each of the variables you listed below can be measured, LD> right? If something (a dependent or attribute variable) can be LD> measured, then it has a number which can then be used to determine LD> if the unique variable is significant , and this is the important LD> part, I think, that when using a regression analysis, it takes LD> into account all the other unique and not unique variables thought LD> to be a contributor to the healing (increased functional LD> activities, increased occupation). LD> So, if one individual, has a history of any or most of these, LD> then how does that effect your treatment versus if she had 30% LD> relevant, or 10% relevant, etc... The more variables, the more LD> chances for your results occuring because of poor internal LD> validity (poor job controlling all the other variablesvariables) - LD> and you dont know if it were treatment approach a or b or c or d LD> or e.....or placebo. LD> OK...I am going statistical here and trying to explain LD> it..,.....but, if you can quantify something, you can study its LD> relationship with other variables and outcomes. LD> This is fun. LD> ________________________________ LD> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ron Carson LD> Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 7:31 PM LD> To: Lehman, David LD> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD> Hello David: LD> I hate to disagree but every person has unique variables. That's what LD> makes us unique. And perhaps the greatest and uniqueness variable of LD> all is the subjective feeling and experiences associated with injury, LD> disease and illness. It is in fact that subjective experience of our LD> patient's that makes being an OT so difficult. LD> Regarding a list, here's a few: LD> age, gender, marital status, employment history, race, religion, LD> medical history, current medications, spiritual beliefs, family LD> support, financial support, cognitive status, mental status, LD> education, prior experience with OT, expectations, diet, sleep LD> patterns, do they have regular bowel movements, etc. LD> The list is truly endless!! LD> This is a GREAT topic LD> Ron LD> ----- Original Message ----- LD> From: Lehman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LD> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 LD> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> LD> Subj: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD>> I mis-spoke, perhaps....meaning that there really are no LD>> unique variables that ONLY exist to one person on earth. If LD>> enough data is gathered on a population, the "unique" or should I LD>> say less appearing variables we call unique, would be detectable LD>> and the statistical model would show us what contribution that LD>> particular "unique variable" makes and if it is significant in the LD>> outcome. LD>> I guess my next question would be to ask the members to list LD>> variables they consider unique to a person that have an impact on LD>> the treatment they provide. LD>> ________________________________ LD>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ron Carson LD>> Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 4:04 PM LD>> To: Lehman, David LD>> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD>> I don't know much, if anything, about regression theory, but I'm LD>> pretty confident that it is impossible to take into account ALL the LD>> UNIQUE variables that account for healing. Also, it seems rather LD>> counterintuitive to try include a "unique" variable into a "general" LD>> logarithm. LD>> Ron LD>> ----- Original Message ----- LD>> From: Lehman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LD>> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 LD>> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> LD>> Subj: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD>>> all of the unique variables of LD>>> a client could one day be analysed in a regression model LD>>> and thus determine how much these LD>>> unique variables actually account for healing, then LD>>> include them in the logaritm? LD>> -- LD>> Unsubscribe? LD>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] LD>> Change options? LD>> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com LD>> Archive? LD>> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] LD>> Help? LD>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] LD> -- LD> Unsubscribe? LD> [EMAIL PROTECTED] LD> Change options? LD> www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com LD> Archive? LD> www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] LD> Help? LD> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Unsubscribe? [EMAIL PROTECTED] Change options? www.otnow.com/mailman/options/otlist_otnow.com Archive? www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] Help? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
