At 08:12 AM 2/29/2000 -0500, Steven Specht wrote:
>I don't think folks are "rescaling" to prevent negative numbers or to avoid
>some situation. That strikes me as implying that, once again, statisticians
>are somehow arbitrarily manipulating numbers for some "convenience" rather
>than for some sound reason. I think most statisticians have better things to
>do (and get paid well for it).
There is a sound reason for avoiding negative numbers: they tend to confuse
the general public. It isn't a technical/theoretical reason, but a very
applied issue.
>In order to get negative numbers with the IQ (Intelligence *Quotient*),
one of
>the numbers in the ratio would have to be negative. Chronological age, for
all
This would be true if IQ was still being determined by the ratio of CA to
MA, but it is more often based on a distribution of scores now. As a
result, negative numbers are possible, IF the distribution was centered at,
for example, zero instead of 100.
Off to teach class...
- Marc
G. Marc Turner, MEd
Lecturer & Head of Computer Operations
Department of Psychology
Southwest Texas State University
San Marcos, TX 78666
phone: (512)245-2526
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
