On 21 Jul 2000 07:57:42 GMT, Ron Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip, including citation ...
I was responding to Mr. Ullrich's implication that while,
on the one hand the observed "chi-squared" value can be interpreted as
a test statistic, on the other hand, the observed "odds ratio" is
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21 Jul 2000 07:57:42 GMT, Ron Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
snip, including citation ...
I was responding to Mr. Ullrich's implication that while,
on the one hand the observed "chi-squared" value can be interpreted as
a test statistic, on the
Ron,
Of course they are very much related to each other. However, they answer
slightly different questions. The readers who know some statistics are
aware that the p value for no treatment effect is less than alpha iff
the confidence interval for the log of the odds ratio based on 1-alpha/2
Jan de Leeuw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is one of the areas in which we cannot be precise enough. An
observed statistics is not a random variable, but
a realization of a random variable. Random variables
are theoretical or mathematical constructs, which are never observed
directly. In
- Original Message -
From: Jan de Leeuw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ron Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Why quote *both* Odds Ratio and Chi^2 ?
This is one of the areas in which we cannot be precise enough. An
observed
Rich Ulrich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ron's post never showed up on my server.
I especially agreed with the first paragraph of Steve's answer.
No one so far has posted a response that recognizes the total
innocence of the original question --
This is not, "Why do we see two things that are
This is one of the areas in which we cannot be precise enough. An
observed statistics is not a random variable, but
a realization of a random variable. Random variables
are theoretical or mathematical constructs, which are never observed
directly. In frequentist statistics the random variable
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
Excpet that in the case of contingency tables, one test does not
necessarily dominate another. If, for example, you were to
choose the smaller P value from the Pearson chi-square and the
likelihood ratio tests, your true level
Ron's post never showed up on my server.
I especially agreed with the first paragraph of Steve's answer.
No one so far has posted a response that recognizes the total
innocence of the original question --
This is not, "Why do we see two things that are almost identical?"
This is, "Why do we
Ron Bloom writes:
Why do canned software packages
quote so many different statistics whose
intrinsic tendencies towards "significance"
or non-significance are obviously correlated
with each other. Is it because folklore
somehow plays a large part in what the
"right test is" ?
This is a
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Simon, Steve, PhD wrote in part:
I have a bad joke about statistical software. I mention a certain
software package and say that it is so wonderful. The best part is
that it allows you to run ten different tests of the same hypothesis
and then you can pick the test
Donald Burrill wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Simon, Steve, PhD wrote in part:
I have a bad joke about statistical software. I mention a certain
software package and say that it is so wonderful. The best part is
that it allows you to run ten different tests of the same hypothesis
and
12 matches
Mail list logo
