[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two probability questions...
If X has chi-square distribution with 5 degrees of freedom
1. what is the probability of X 3
Look that value up in a chi-square table and find out.
2. what is the probability of X 3 given that X 1.1
Look both values up in a table
dennis roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[regarding the "point biserial correlation"]
and it certainly has nothing to do with a "shortcut" formula for
calculating r ... it MAY have decades ago but it has not for the past
20 years ...
While I certainly agree that many textbooks convey
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Robert J. MacG. Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herman Rubin wrote:
In article 8smcpv$41r$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Choi, Young Sung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am a statistically poor researcher and have a statistical problem.
I have two candidate distributions,
Hello World,
Where could I find the FAQ and some libraries
of in VB?
Thanks in advance,
Gilles B.)
=
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been searching for some "psychological" data on the .05 issue - I
know it's out there but haven't found it yet. It went something like this:
Claim to a friend that you have a fair coin. But the coin is not fair. Flip
At 06:14 AM 10/21/00 +, Eric Bohlman wrote:
1) It demonstrates that a correlation problem in which one variable is
dichotomous is equivalent to a two-group mean-difference problem.
maybe you can make this point but, to a typical student ... i would say
this equivalence would be lost
2) It
Michael Granaas wrote:
Someone, I think it was on this thread, mentioned Abelson's book
"Statistics as Principled Argument". In this book Abelson argues that
individual studies simply provide pieces of evidence for or against a
particular hypothesis. It is the accumulation of the evidence
Eric noted: "While I certainly agree that many textbooks convey the
absolutely
misleading impression that the "PBC" is some special form of measure, I
think that the usual formula presented for it is pedagogically useful in a
few ways (not that the typical textbook makes use of them):1) It
Michael said:
Unfortunately, I think that replication is probably one of the most
overlooked issues in the discussion of hypothesis testing etc.
Agreed. A related misconception is that a statistically "significant"
result means that a replication attempt will likely produce statistically
At 09:43 PM 10/21/00 -0400, Karl L. Wuensch wrote:
You all may find this hard to believe, but, in my experience, a large
proportion of social scientists have the delusion that if you conduct a
traditional two-group t-test, then you are qualified to make causal
inferences (that is, variance
dennis roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:14 AM 10/21/00 +, Eric Bohlman wrote:
1) It demonstrates that a correlation problem in which one variable is
dichotomous is equivalent to a two-group mean-difference problem.
maybe you can make this point but, to a typical student ... i would
Herman Rubin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As we get more complex situations, like those happening
in biology, and especially in the social sciences, it is
necessary to consider that models may have substantial
errors and still be "accepted", as one can only get some
understanding by using
12 matches
Mail list logo
