RE: st: RE: Re: Kenel density function

[Janet Hill <janethill73@yahoo.co.uk>]

Sorry for my ineptitude explaining the data. The master and cast are scanned and the scanner has a fixed increment of 0.25 mm (the smallest that can be obtained) so I have binned data at these increments and I wanted to see how 'reproducible' the scans were. Eventually, so I have just found out, the experiment will extend to comparing 3 different methods of of making the cast. So my final analysis is going to compare 3 methods when the outcome is a frequency distribution - if that is possible.

Many thanks for your time.
Janet.

--- On Tue, 29/6/10, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote:

> From: Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
> Subject: RE: st: RE: Re: Kenel density function
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Date: Tuesday, 29 June, 2010, 15:36
> You can smooth binned data: the
> problem, if any, is in over-interpreting
> results. 
> 
> Where does the binning come from? Why aren't unrounded data
> available? 
> 
> Nick 
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu]
> On Behalf Of Janet Hill
> Sent: 29 June 2010 15:23
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: st: RE: Re: Kenel density function
> 
> Thank you for that. There is a single master and 6 separate
> impressions
> have been taken of this so they are uncoupled. The
> difference between
> each impression and the master has been measured and this
> gives the
> binned data.Ideally this should have a value of zero for
> perfect fit. I
> thought that I could use the kernel density on binned data
> but I
> obviously need to do some more reading.
> 
> Any advice would be gratefully received.
> 
> Janet
> --- On Tue, 29/6/10, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>
> > Subject: st: RE: Re: Kenel density function
> > To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> > Date: Tuesday, 29 June, 2010, 14:54
> > You should tell us more about the
> > design. Do these come in groups of six, or are the
> six
> > distributions entirely uncoupled from each other? It
> sounds
> > as if that information has been omitted from what you
> have;
> > if so, retrieving it is the first priority. 
> > 
> > Either way, trying to reduce all this to
> Kolmogorov-Smirnov
> > looks severely problematic to me. As the data are
> already
> > binned, kernel estimation also looks suspect. 
> > 
> > Nick 
> > n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
> > 
> > 
> > Janet Hill
> > 
> > I would be grateful for some advice. I have some data
> from
> > an experiment in which the difference between a cast
> and the
> > master model has been measured. The data consists of
> the
> > frequency of difference from -8 to + 8 mm in steps of
> 0.25,
> > and 6 different casts were made. Kernel density plots
> show
> > obvious differences between the casts but is there any
> way I
> > can formally test this - or am I missing an obvious
> way to
> > compare the frequency distributions/ I had thought of
> using
> > Kolmogorov-Smirnov followed by multiple comparisons
> but I
> > was not sure how applicable it would be.
> > 
> > I am using Stata 11.1
> > 
> 
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
> 


      


*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/