Karl L. Wuensch wrote:
misunderstanding of the logic of hypothesis testing. Sigh. Maybe Frank
Schmidt is correct when he suggests that we abandon tests of significance
(Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative
knowledge in psychology: Implications for training
this is the third in our series of short www assignments for extra credit
in the edpsy 400 class
due on ... wednesday november 22 ... day before thanksgiving
holiday
using any or all of the following search engines,
http://www.google.com
http://www.directhit.com
http://www.alltheweb.com
i
your question is more a mathematical psych or psychometric one. see
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.topica.com/lists/psychometrics
Susan R Murray wrote:
About 30 people have listed this newsgroup as the reason they came to
the test and yet I have had not one reply on where/ how I can get help
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article 8tl9ir$j9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED], kj0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a type III statistical error?
(I know about types I and II).
Thanks,
This is the most common type; doing the wrong problem.
Herman,
Great one! Made my day.
--
Bill Clay
"Werner W. Wittmann" wrote:
Herman and N.N.,
type III error means measuring the wrong construct or something
nonexistent.In my German book about evaluation research(1985) I cited the
following:
"Statistician worry about two types of errors..:
Type I error is rejecting a
I don't knwo Matlab, but:
I create two random signals (each 100 points from gaussian distribution
from -1 to 1)
You mean 100 IID Gaussian-distributed points, indexed by values from -1
to 1? (I'm assuming this, anyway.)
and find the maximum cross-correlation value (either
Please note the November issue of SecondMoment has been posted at
http://www.secondmoment.org . This month we are featuring a discussion
with Dr. Hal White on the subject of Reality Check for data mining, a
follow-up to last monthÂ’s discussion on artificial neural networks. As
always we welcome
- several questions, explicit and implicit -
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:17:34 -0800, "Brian Vuong"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
" I work for a bank. I have a data set with 2,600,000
observations[1]. I would like to determine an auditing sample[2] size
that is statistically significant[3] within 1%
Right you are, Elliot.
However, when one finds "no-interaction" among all of those cells
that are present, then one can feel "better" about estimating
the "missing" cell values. Of course, there could be a surprising
explosion!! The more interaction that is detected the more dangerous it can
