WAY, WAY, WAY, over my head. David, please decipher!!!
Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lehman, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subj: [OTlist] FW: Interesting Stats LD> Ron...from our buddy Dan...have fun with this one. LD> ________________________________ LD> From: Lofald, Dan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] LD> Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 2:00 PM LD> To: Lehman, David; Ron Carson LD> Subject: RE: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD> Howdy David, Howdy Ron LD> We might not be sitting at the lunch table but the good conversation continues. LD> As the Irish saying goes, "Is this a private fight or can anyone join" LD> It appears to be that there are about 6 different concepts in play. LD> David's comments about taking all of the variables en' mass LD> and seeing what regression would tell us. LD> Yep-folks do this all of the time. For example, I was LD> involved trying to find lead indicators of newborn deaths at Univ. LD> of Florida Hospital. There were 1400 independent variables and 1 LD> dependent variable (death/life). LD> We hunted around for months looking for best predictive sets LD> of predictors. The approach to this work was, "if it works, it LD> works." However, this is nothing more than mainframe level data LD> grubbing. It can never tell us anything scientifically definitive LD> because the alpha level is astronomical. However, it might give LD> insight on a place to look with tools that are more sophisticated. LD> Invariably, meaningful finds with first-order relationships LD> are rare events. The good stuff is going to emerge out of finding LD> important suppressor and mediator variables at work. In addition, LD> most of the variables will probably not be in a linear LD> relationship with each other (especially not with human beings). LD> With regression, you can check for suppressor and mediator LD> variables and you can test polynomial solutions --- however-to get LD> to the good stuff, we would probably have use multi-variate tools. LD> At the broader level - the two of you have an ontological & LD> mathematical conversation combined (I love it). LD> Let's look at the passage, "All humans are unique." What LD> does that statement mean? Every part of every human is unlike LD> every part of every other human? If that were the case, and we LD> used Set Theory, we would have 121 billion non-intersecting LD> circles. If that were the case, not only would science be LD> impossible, but so also preclude the possibility of language and LD> culture. LD> If by, "All humans are unique," we mean, that some part of my LD> circle does not overlap with your circle - we are now onto LD> something important. Now we can ask how much of our two Venn LD> circles overlap and do not overlap. This is expression we have LD> with a Pearson product-moment correlation of p = .80, which means LD> that 64% of the variance in one variable can be predicted by the LD> variance of the other circle. LD> But what happens when there are ten of us. How do our LD> circles overlap now (we are talking about the ephemeral LD> phenomological/psychological variables that you guys are talking LD> about). If we look at enough people can we find patterns among LD> what initially appeared discretely idiosyncratic? LD> [[Oh gee - I cannot finish this response this week but I LD> should would like to take it up with you guys another time. You LD> are drilling down to one of the most interesting and important LD> pieces of social science. LD> Dan LD> Daniel R. Lofald, PhD LD> Staff Development Coordinator LD> Chippewa Valley Technical College LD> 620 W. Clairemont Ave., Eau Claire, WI 54701-6162 LD> Phone 715-852-1328 Fax 715-833-6451 LD> ________________________________ LD> From: Lehman, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] LD> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 8:54 PM LD> To: Lofald, Dan LD> Subject: FW: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD> Ron remembers you.....well! LD> More thoughts? LD> ________________________________ LD> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ron Carson LD> Sent: Wed 7/26/2006 8:42 PM LD> To: Lehman, David LD> Subject: Re: [OTlist] Interesting Stats LD> Given that you have a PhD, and if I remember, you and Dan L. LD> frequently talked about this stuff, I feel that I am definitely LD> out-classed!! <lol>. But, being the brave, (uh, stupid) person that I LD> am, I will continue wading in the deep end of the pool. LD> It seems that regression analysis looks at individual variables. But LD> we know that people are not just collection of individual variables. LD> We are after all, greater then the sum of our parts. LD> How does regression analysis look at the SUM of the variables? LD> Also, is it possible to quantify a subjective feeling? I know this is LD> done with pain scales, but the subjective nature of such scales LD> renders them almost useless for comparisons sake. In other words, my LD> reported pain of 9 is total meaningless when COMPARED to your reported LD> pain of 9. LD> Lastly, just because someone has a history of any of the variables, in LD> and of itself, that history is meaningless. For example, just because LD> someone has a history of total hip arthroplasty, that doesn't mean LD> they will need adaptations to dress their lower body. LD> Ok, one more "lastly". You said: david>> The more variables, the more chances for your results occuring david>> because of poor internal validity LD> Are you saying that the greater the number of variables, the less LD> likely you can predict the results? If so, they I maintain that the LD> number of variable affecting patient outcomes is infinite and thus you LD> can never truly predict the outcomes. Keep in mind that I refer to LD> patients, not to procedures. 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 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] 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]
