Re: statalist-digest V4 #4807 (st: reliability with -icc- ) - Statistics as APPLIED science

["JVerkuilen (Gmail)" <jvverkuilen@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do agree broadly with Allan, whether or not that is surprising.

Me too, actually, though I think both Nick and I were misquoted and
taken out of context. I know the first thing I did with the raw data
was qnorm and graph box....


> A wilder idea is that rater 4 who gave no score higher than 3 either
> never knew or somehow forgot that scores could be up to 100 and just
> used a 5-point scale. Even if #4 did know that, #4 is so out-of-line
> that including them remains dubious, although doing computations with
> and without #4 remains manageable.
>
> In any case if the highest score is 18, then something else is going
> on that needs to be spelled out, if only as context.

100% agree and that's certainly consistent with a good bit of the
discussion on that thread, but there were quite a bit of discussions
not strictly aimed at Lenny's original problem but at the broader
question of ICC estimation using Stata, which is the nature of this
listserv.



> Only the original poster can add more context than we already have. In
> any field that I know about this dataset would be too small to be
> publishable, except as a toy dataset to make points about method
> (which I take it is Jay's motive here).

Yes, that's my exact motive. I'm writing a paper on "small sample"
problems with estimation of reliability coefficients, which are quite
common in practice.


-- 
JVVerkuilen, PhD
jvverkuilen@gmail.com

"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on
the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." --Bruce Lee,
Enter the Dragon (1973)
*
*   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/