Stan Brown wrote:
I see why the quality controller would want to
do a two-tailed test: the product should not be outside
manufacturing parameters in either direction. (Presumably the QC
person would be testing the pills themselves, not patients taking
the pills.)
Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
But I don't see why either the advertiser or the consumer advocate
would, or should, do a two-tailed test.
The idea is that the product of these tests is a p-value to be used
in support of an argument. The evidence for the proposal is not made any
Jerry Dallal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in sci.stat.edu:
Robert J. MacG. Dawson wrote:
But I don't see why either the advertiser or the consumer advocate
would, or should, do a two-tailed test.
The idea is that the product of these tests is a p-value to be used
in support of an
On Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:20:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stan Brown)
wrote:
[cc'd to previous poster]
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in sci.stat.edu:
I think I could not blame students for floundering about on this one.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:39:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stan Brown)
[cc'd to previous poster]
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in sci.stat.edu:
I think I could not blame students for floundering about on this one.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:39:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stan Brown)
wrote:
The manufacturer of a patent medicine claims that it is 90%
[cc'd to previous poster; please follow up in newsgroup]
Robert J. MacG. Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
sci.stat.edu:
Stan Brown wrote:
The manufacturer of a patent medicine claims that it is 90%
effective(*) in relieving an allergy for a period of 8 hours. In a
sample of 200 people who
Stan Brown wrote:
On a quiz, I set the following problem to my statistics class:
The manufacturer of a patent medicine claims that it is 90%
effective(*) in relieving an allergy for a period of 8 hours. In a
sample of 200 people who had the allergy, the medicine provided
relief for 170
I think I could not blame students for floundering about on this one.
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:39:35 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stan Brown)
wrote:
On a quiz, I set the following problem to my statistics class:
The manufacturer of a patent medicine claims that it is 90%
effective(*) in
Hi
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Stan Brown wrote:
But -- and in retrospect I should have seen it coming -- some
students framed the hypotheses so that the alternative hypothesis
was the drug is effective as claimed. They had
Ho: p = .9; Ha: p .9; p-value = .9908.
You might point out to
Stan Brown wrote:
On a quiz, I set the following problem to my statistics class:
The manufacturer of a patent medicine claims that it is 90%
effective(*) in relieving an allergy for a period of 8 hours. In a
sample of 200 people who had the allergy, the medicine provided
relief for 170
forget the statement of the null
build a CI ... perhaps 99% (which would correspond to your .01 sig. test) ...
let that help to determine if the claim seems reasonable or not
in this case ... p hat = .85 .. thus q hat = .15
stan error of a proportion (given SRS was done) is about
stan error
Gus,
Stan's two alternatives were correct as stated - they were two one sided
tests, not a one sided and a two sided test.
Stan, in practical terms, the conclusion 'fail to reject the null' is
simply not true. You do in reality 'accept the null'. The catch is that
this is, in the research
12 matches
Mail list logo
