HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Return-Path: <sbaker@umassmed.UMMED.EDU>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 07:13:07 -0400
Reply-To:     Stephen Baker <sbaker@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
From:         Stephen Baker <sbaker@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
Subject:      Res Meths Courses

Dennis Roberts writes (paraphrasing) that there are too many courses where the
student is expected to do it all.

I disagree, a research methods course, esp. at the doctoral level, should teach
students how to do research, from scratch IMHO.  The instructor's task is to
teach them how to do it, and having them do it themselves is a reasonable
approach, if the instructor critiques, corrects and guides them.  As investigat
rs often strike off in directions new to them, it is quite reasonable for them
to pick something that is beyond their own and even the instructor's experience
and training.  The instructor should at that point say " we need help here,
when you are unsure of the statistical issues what you should do is consult
with a statistician."

It is a disservice in a research methods course to teach students only the
most basic designs/situations, possibly excepting at the undergraduate level.
Students need to get out of a methods course what to do to end up with a
reasonable project capable of answering real questions. NOT the experience
of doing trivial projects capable of answering at most trivial questions
all by themselves.


Stephen P. Baker                                phone:  (508) 856-2625
Lecturer in Biostatistics                               (508) 856-2440 fax
Department of Academic Computing                        (413) 253-3923 home
University of Massachusetts Medical School      e-mail: sbaker@umassmed.bitnet
55 Lake Avenue North                                    _. .____ __. _ __._
Worcester, MA 01655
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:30:00 PDT
Reply-To:     Albyn Jones <jones@REED.EDU>
From:         Albyn Jones <jones@REED.EDU>
Subject:      RA Fisher, correction

from "R A Fisher: An Appreciation", Fienberg & Hinkley, eds.
    "Fisher: The Early Years" by Joan Fisher Box

"Fisher's eugenic commitment, like any genuine philosophy, was a way
of life rather than a way of thinking.  ... Disappointed in army service
Fisher developed ideas that farming was a eugenic way of life and an
essential service to the nation.  Its success depended on personal
qualities rather than money, and it was the only occupation in which
a large family would be an advantage.  He married in 1917 and with his
wife and sister-in-law, took a small holding and practiced subsistence
farming.  There, in the former gamekeeper's cottage, the first of
Fisher's nine children was born in 1919..."

So there, albyn, that will teach you to quote statistics from memory!


albyn jones
jones@reed.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: mcphers@HILBERT.MATHS.UTAS.EDU.AU (D. Glen McPherson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Re "proving" no difference
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:29:19 GMT
Reply-To: "D. Glen McPherson" <mcphers@HILBERT.MATHS.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.2 PL11]

The use of a confidence interval for the difference in means, proportions, etc
(or for ratios) is a simple way around the problem of trying to prove no
difference. If the 95% confidence interval for the difference in means is, say,
-0.1 to +0.3, then the experimenter, or those who read the experimental report
can decide whether differences in this range are small enough to be of
no scientific importance. There is the added advantage that a practical
assessment of the power of the procedure is also indicated by the width of the
interval. I have found it particularly effective in establishing the dangers
of assuming no difference when power is low - if the interval runs from -5 to
10, and the experimenter regards 10 as a large difference, then the implications
that treatment 2 could produce a response which might be up to 10 units
higher than treatment 1 provides a strong incentive against claiming there is
no difference between the treatment effects.

For nonstatisticians, the meaning of the interval is easily explained  - it
contains the set of differences which are likely to include the true difference.
The fact that it is an interval rather than a single value is a reflection that
there is a chance component in the selection of the sample.

Regards,  Glen.

--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Glen McPherson            |                                   |  _--_|\  |
|  Department of Mathematics |-----------------------------------| /      \ |
|  University of Tasmania    |               E-Mail:             | \_.--._/ |
|  Australia.                | mcphers@hilbert.maths.utas.edu.au |       *  |
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hayden@OZ.PLYMOUTH.EDU (Dr. Robert Hayden)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: bounces
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:20:13 GMT
Reply-To: "Dr. Robert Hayden" <hayden@OZ.PLYMOUTH.EDU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

I have sometimes had a bounce problem in the past.  Let's see if I can
beat 14 bounces with this message!  The reason I am posting is that I
have found that when you get a bounce message, your own message
usually HAS been posted.  It's as if a ghost copy arrives later and
that gets bounced.  If you try to post it again in response to the
bounce message, your second posting will get bounced, AS WILL ITS
GHOST.  There is a wonderful opportunity for illustrating exponential
growth (in the number of bounce messages) here!

I have been waging a one man campaign to have EDSTAT-L changed so that
I actually see the messages I post.  Tim says this is redundant, and I
agree it is when everything is working perfectly, but I would find it
of great diagnostic help when things are not working.  If I see my
message posted, I can ignore bounce messages.  If I do not, I can try
to find out what the problem is.  I have seen posted messages garbled
by handling of wordwrap or tabs.  Since the poster never sees what his
or her posting looks like, there's no chance to recognize the problem
and correct it.

Would others like to have their own messages echoed back to them?

P.S.
Please wrap around column 65, and not near column 80, and do not put
tabs in your posting.
--


      _
     | |          Robert W. Hayden
     | |          Department of Mathematics
    /  |          Plymouth State College
   |   |          Plymouth, New Hampshire 03264  USA
   | * |
  /    |          (603) 536-2497
 |     )          (603) 535-2489
 L_____/          hayden@oz.plymouth.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:32:42 EDT
Reply-To:     WOLFLE@VTVM2.BITNET
From:         WOLFLE@VTVM2.BITNET

   Generalizing from discriminant analysis to regression analysis,
in general, with regard to dichotomous variables, may I refer you
to G.W. Bohrnstedt and T.M. Carter, "Robustness in Regression
Analysis,"  pp. 118-146 in _Sociological Methodology 1971_.  The
authors show that violations of the assumption of normal
distributions do not generally cause serious distortions in
regression estimates.  Regression estimates are, however,
seriously distorted by measurement errors in the independent
variables, and specification errors in the regression model.

                                Lee Wolfle
                                WOLFLE at VTVM1
                                wolfle@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:21:59 EDT
Reply-To:     Lee <WOLFLE@VTVM1.BITNET>
From:         Lee <WOLFLE@VTVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Rejected messages

   I sent two separate postings today to edstat-l.  In return, I
received about 14 messages saying that these were being rejected
because they were duplicates of previous postings.  That is
rediculous!

   Whoever runs this list, I wish you would get your act together.

                                       Lee Wolfle
                                       WOLFLE at VTVM1
From: LOOMERN@ACAD.RIPON.EDU (Norm Loomer -- Ripon College)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Info on StatLab program
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: Norm Loomer -- Ripon College <LOOMERN@ACAD.RIPON.EDU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"EDSTAT-L@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: LOOMERN

The Summer 1991 issue of Teaching Statistics contains a review of
StatLab, a program for the Macintosh that enables students to do a wide
range of simulations and graphically demonstrate the main concepts of
the introductory course.  Surprisingly, the review contains no
information on pricing or source.  Can anyone tell me how much and where
I can get it?

Norm Loomer
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Ripon College
Ripon, WI 54971
loomern@acad.ripon.edu
From: SGARDNER@BAYLRHSB.BAYLOR.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Math notation on the network
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:59:46 GMT
Reply-To: SGARDNER@BAYLRHSB.BAYLOR.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Please excuse me if this is an ignorant question, but I am new to
this discussion group.

I have a friend who is trying to carry on joint research with statisticians
in Russia and other countries.  He has been doing this through the regular
surface mail, and, as you can imagine, this has moved slowly.

Is there an established method of sending mathematical notation over the
e-mail network?  In other words, is there a coding system to translate
the available character set into and out of math notation?

I expect that something like this must exist, because there are ways,
for example, to translate text sent over the network from the Roman to the
Cyrillic alphebet.

If the answer to this question is already common knowledge to readers of this
list, please respond to me privately, or at least suggest where I may look
for the answer.

Thanks!



========================================================================
||  STEVE GARDNER             BITNET: SGARDNER@BAYLRHSB               ||
||  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS   INTERNET: SGARDNER@BAYLRHSB.BAYLOR.EDU  ||
||  BAYLOR UNIVERSITY         OFFICE PHONE: (817) 755-2263            ||
||  P.O. BOX 98003            OFFICE FAX:   (817) 755-2421            ||
||  WACO, TX 76798-8003       HOME PHONE:   (817) 776-2757            ||
||                            HOME FAX:     (817) 776-6274            ||
||====================================================================||
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:04:04 LCL
Reply-To:     "William J. Powell" <WJPOWELL@SUVM.BITNET>
From:         "William J. Powell" <WJPOWELL@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: How do you signoff?

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:56:43 -0400 you said:
>> signoff edstat-l.
>No LISTSERV distribution list by the name of "EDSTAT-L." is known to exist.

Could someone please tell me how to signoff from this list
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:26:33 EDT
Reply-To:     Stephen Salbod <SALBOD1@PACEVM.BITNET>
From:         Stephen Salbod <SALBOD1@PACEVM.BITNET>

Did I accidently subscribe to the "Physics List".

PRODUCED AND DIRECTED BY STEPHEN SALBOD (SALBOD1@PACEVM)
        ON LOCATION AT PACE UNIVERSITY, NY
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 10:11:00 EDT
Reply-To:     Dennis Roberts <DMR@PSUVM.BITNET>
Comments:     208 Cedar Bldg.
Comments:     University Park, PA USA
Comments:     AC 814-863-2401
From:         Dennis Roberts <DMR@PSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Item remainder r's

The item remainder r is nothing more than the correlation between a part score
with some total score, of which the part is part of the total. In item analysis
, the correlation of an item with the total test score is an example. Since the
 item score is INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL, some of the variability of the total is D
UE TO the item score. The more the part influences the total, then the more bia
s the part, total correlation is. For example, if you look at the relationhsip
between course test scores, and the total points in a course, the total points
variable is primarily a function of the parts, since the total is not independe
nt of the parts. Most good item analysis programs produce these item, total cor
relations, with or without the item being a part of the total score. If not, th
ere is a simple formula to do this calculation; one could make a macro file to
do it. It is as follows in VERBAL TERMS.

   Numerator       [r(part,tot)*SDtot - SDpart]
                  -------------------------------
   Denominator    SQRT [VARpart + VARtot  - 2 * SDpart*SDtot*r(part,tot)]

This will produce a correlation between the part and the total with the part sc
ore excluded from the total: ie, the item remainder r.
From: jerry@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Re: Envelope (IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION)
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:54:50 GMT
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <1992Oct7.094306.430@hnrc.tufts.edu>, jerry@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal) writes:
> The fact that this paradox can stir up such heated discussion and emotions
> among *teahcers* of statistics speaks volumes about why so many students are
> poorly taught.
> 

An important clarification:  Let no one get the mistaken impression that this
is a personal attack (veiled or otherwise) on Walt Pirie.  I mean the words
as they stand (well, "teahcers" should have been "teachers").  If the teachers
of statistics are having a hard time agreeing on the solution to this paradox,
then how can they be teaching the subject in a way that would allow their
students to reach a consensus?  The only excuse would be if there were *no*
solution.  But there *is* a solution (ok, many--frequentist, Bayesian, etc.,
but each is straightforward once a philosophy is adopted).  Therefore, the
lack of agreement among teachers speaks poorly of the profession.
From: PSWUENSC@ECUVM1.BITNET (Karl L. Wuensch)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Re: Correcting chi square?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:44:02 GMT
Reply-To: "Karl L. Wuensch" <PSWUENSC@ECUVM1.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Here is the exercise I use to demonstrate to my students the advantage of
making the "correction for continuity" when using Chi-Square to approximate
a binomial probability with small sample sizes:

     "We wish to test the null that 50% of ECU students favour tuition
increases to fund the acquisition of additional computers for student use.
The data are:  In a random sample of 3, not a single person favours the
increase.  Conduct a binomial test.  Obtain an exact binomial p, two-tailed.
Now use Chi-Square to test the same null.  Remember that a one-tailed,
upper-tailed p will be appropriate.  Do NOT make the correction for continuity.
Compare the exact binomial p with the p from the Chi-Square.  Now, recompute
the Chi-Square, making the correction for continuity.  The computed Chi-Square
will be so close to a tabled critical value that you will be able to get a
nearly exact p therefrom.  Compare this Chi-Square p with the exact binomial
p and draw a conclusion regarding whether or not one should use the correction
for continuity when approximating a binomial probability."

     I use a similar exercise to demonstrate the advisability of making the
correction for continuity when using the normal approximation of the binomial.
If, however, you are thinking about the Pearson Chi-Square analysis for
contingency tables with one df, then you need to consider whether or not the
marginals are fixed.

    Karl L. Wuensch, Dept. of Psychology, East Carolina Univ.
    Greenville, NC  27858-4353, phone 919-757-6800
    Bitnet Address: PSWUENSC@ECUVM1
    Internet Address:  PSWUENSC@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:33:00 PDT
Reply-To:     "Peter A. Lachenbruch" <IARSPAL@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
From:         "Peter A. Lachenbruch" <IARSPAL@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      abbreviations

I frequently get bewildered by the abbreviations that are used on this exchange
 I think I've figured out at least some:
IMO =  in my opinion
IMHO = in my humble opinion
TIA = thanks in advance OR transient ischemic attack?
Does anyone have a list of these that he/she would be willing to share? Or
should we just hope that we get by.
Similarly, does *words* mean quotes or underline or what.

Thanks  - Tony
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:20:27 MDT
Reply-To:     vokey@HG.ULETH.CA
From:         vokey@HG.ULETH.CA
Subject:      rejected messages

It's not just EDSTAT-L.  It may be coincidence, but I received the same
rejection (i.e., that a post was a duplicate) from MAC-L.  Mind you, it took 2
days for the post to be returned!

John R. Vokey <vokey@hg.uleth.ca>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:37:30 -0400
Reply-To:     Mike M Harde <mikeh@WORLD.STD.COM>
From:         Mike M Harde <mikeh@WORLD.STD.COM>
Subject:      echoed messages

Count my vote for Bob Hayden's request for echoed messages.
Certainly the "redundancy" is pretty minimal.

Mike Harde
Lincoln Systems Corp
mikeh@world.std.com
From: jerry@hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: Re: federal support for statistical software
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:11:46 GMT
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <EDSTAT-L%92101501085467@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU>, IARSPAL@UCLAMVS.BITNET (Peter A. Lachenbruch) writes:
> The NIH has a SBIR (small business innovation research) grant program which
> supports various projects as Paul Thompson is proposing (I hope I got the
> sender correct!). These projects are in two phases: phase I is a 6 month
> feasibility study and is limited to $50,000 including overhead. Phase II is
> up to 3 years for a total of $500,000. You must be a small business and the
> president of the company must be employed at least 50% time by the company.

This *is* an exciting program.  It allows developers to keep the wolf from the
door during a project's startup phase.

My understanding is that they are quite strict about being employed at 
least 50% time by the company.  That is, academics who get a full salary
from their institutions are ineligible unless they drop down to a half time
appointment.  It is not enough to say that you work for the company as though
it were a second job and put in an equal number of hours.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:12:00 PDT
Reply-To:     "Peter A. Lachenbruch" <IARSPAL@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
From:         "Peter A. Lachenbruch" <IARSPAL@UCLAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:      long messages

My comment from earlier today was related to the irrelevant message which was
posted yesterday about Larsonian physics. Apparently one person thought the
comment was related to the relationship between factor analysis and physics,
which was not the case. I find the discussion regarding the common thread to be
fascinating. There were several responses posted to me - either directly or on
the edstat board.
One stated he'd rather skim through the messages and not inhibit valid stats
discussion.
Another suggested a note to "the nincompoop's sysadmin, cc: nincompoop" ex-
plaining the nature of the sin.
Still another requests that I go into more detail about mandatory limits: if
the load on the system becomes great either people will stop subscribing AND
contributing, or the sysadmin will start engaging in censorship - I'd rather
we limit ourselves.
"It's a network about statistics and the teaching of it. Many topics are fair
game ... but let's use some common sense."
"I like the responses, comments and diatribes from all walks of statistical
 life... Perhaps it would help ... if a concise statement of the message intent
were  placed at the beginning..."  To that I say amen - Place the quotes, etc.
at the end, a short summary at the start - but keep it brief.

To the person who thinks of 'thought police' - my goal is not to stifle discuss
ion. The person who posts a 15 page irrelevant message to the board is spending
my time unnecessarily. I hope each message has something good to it - and when
I spend 5 minutes wading through material that is unrelated to my love for stat
istics, I get mightily irritated. I also deeply resent your comment on 'thought
police' - why are you not irritated when someone wastes your time on silly
material like the Larsonian physics. If this were a physics BB, it would have
been relevant - but not on a statistics board.
Peter A. Lachenbruch
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 16:29:03 EDT
Reply-To:     Steven R Brown <SBROWN@KENTVM.BITNET>
From:         Steven R Brown <SBROWN@KENTVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: long messages

On Thu, 8 Oct 1992 12:53:00 PDT Peter A. Lachenbruch said:
>Dear fellow estaters -
>The abuse of our patience and interests by the recent physics diatribe leads me
>to suggest the following:
>We voluntarily limit ourselves to about 300 words (about 1 typed page) for any
>messages....
>
>If this isn't done, we may be facing mandatory limits.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This sounds ominous.  Can you elaborate...in about 300 words?
From: sbaker@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU (Stephen Baker)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.edstat-l
Subject: SPSS for Windows
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:36:26 GMT
Reply-To: Stephen Baker <sbaker@UMASSMED.UMMED.EDU>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Return-Path: <sbaker@umassmed.UMMED.EDU>

Bruce Peterson, in rebuking promotional material from StatSoft critical of
SPSS for Windows quotes an article in PC Week (8/24/92 p. 78) which indicates
that the reviewers had used data containing a typographical error and that
the rating of SPSS was upgraded to  "should upgrade or take a serious look"
paraphrasing.

Closer inspection of that correction indicates that they did note a change in
precision from a few parts per thousand to one in ten billion for errors in
regression coefficients on a six parameter model.  HOWEVER, there is no
reference to a rating of SPSS, in fact the quoted text is just above the
correction and is in fact, the continuation of an unrelated article that
begins on page 75!  I suspect that the actual rating, given the correction
might be higher but we don't know from the reference given.


Stephen P. Baker                                phone:  (508) 856-2625
Lecturer in Biostatistics                               (508) 856-2440 fax
Department of Academic Computing                        (413) 253-3923 home
University of Massachusetts Medical School      e-mail: sbaker@umassmed.bitnet
55 Lake Avenue North                                    _. .____ __. _ __._
Worcester, MA 01655
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU