Dave Gentile wrote:
> Then using the revised numbers, the finding is significant at the
> 89th percentile, just short of one typical arbitrary cut-off.
> Regardless, it still adds something when combined with your other
Thanks for carrying out this investigation.
> Finally, one other potential problem - How was the "11+" criteria
> selected? Was that the first number you tried, or did you try other
> string length cutoffs first?
Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that
the result was going to be too sensitive to the choice of cut-off. I wanted
to choose a cut-off which was significantly lower than 18+, yet not so low
as to necessitate too much effort (my procedure being part computerized and
part manual). It also had to be not too near 14 as I had already observed an
apparently more-than-average number of strings of this length with known
assignment, and didn't want the result to be biased. I had also by this
stage determined to use a single computer run, for which (as it happens) an
odd number cut-off was more 'efficient'. Hence the 11+.
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm