Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

RE: st: Standard error of the estimate for svy: reg


From   "Richard Forshee" <rforshee@umd.edu>
To   <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>
Subject   RE: st: Standard error of the estimate for svy: reg
Date   Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:32:31 -0400

4 8 15 16 23 42 (The Lost Numbers, sacrificed to StataList)

This discussion has helped me to think through the issues I asked about.  I
appreciate the time that everyone took to comment.  I will consider all of
the suggestions and make a closure post to describe my final approach.

--Rich

Richard A. Forshee, Ph.D.
University of Maryland--College Park

Message-----
From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
[mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Samuels
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:24 PM
To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: st: Standard error of the estimate for svy: reg

Mike, I've acknowledged that different fields use different  
nomenclature.  I really don't want to spend my  own time discussing  
the issue.  Others are welcome to do so.


-Steve
On Aug 22, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Hanson wrote:

> On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Steven Samuels wrote:
>
>> I'll leave this topic with the following reference:
>>
>> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7521/903
>>
>> Steve
>
> 	Since you've left this topic, you've foreclosed any opportunity to  
> clarify the relevance of that citation.  In my very quick read of  
> it, nothing in the second- and third-to-last paragraphs seems to be  
> inconsistent with the use of the terminology "standard error of the  
> estimate" (or "standard error of the regression") that we have  
> previously established is not uncommon in certain social sciences  
> but apparently unknown to at least some people in other  
> (biomedical?) fields;  the remaining paragraphs appear to discuss  
> other topics.  I personally don't see a problem with different  
> fields having different nomenclatures, and the point of my previous  
> message was simply to indicate that the questioned term is not  
> uncommon in certain (broad) fields of applied statistics.
>
> 	With the discussion abruptly ended I gather that the implication  
> was meant to be that certain fields (viz. the social sciences) were  
> misusing a term.  I would be interested in learning the substance  
> of that argument, if in fact that was the case.  Otherwise I am  
> still puzzling over the contribution of the citation to the prior  
> exchange.
>
>                                         -- Mike
>
> P.S.:  Stas's argument against the use of the RMSE/SEE in the OP's  
> question sounds valid to me, but I do not claim any familiarity  
> with estimation using survey data.
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

Steven  Samuels

sjhsamuels@earthlink.net
18 Cantine's Island
Saugerties, NY 12477
Phone: 845-246-0774
EFax: 208-498-7441




*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index