We agree. I was referring to your bottom line in your previous post.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:18 PM, JVerkuilen (Gmail)
<jvverkuilen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree, but note the bottom line, namely that Henry's problem is
>> about an ordinal variable with several proportions.
>
> Yes, that's why I said that a multinomial analysis would be necessary,
> but sometimes those end up becoming contrasts of binomials.
>
>>
>> As a minute point, Jeffreys' procedure has a frequentist
>> interpretation as a continuity-corrected version of the so-called
>> exact (Clopper-Pearson) confidence interval.
>
> Yes, that's true, the same procedures can often be viewed from
> different angles. I tend to think of Bayes methods as a convenient way
> of imposing a roughness penalty on likelihoods.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
