Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Testing the 3ST

Expand Messages
  • Ron Price
    ... Dave, Thanks for carrying out this investigation. ... Good question. I first tried 18+ and realized there were so few strings that the result was going to
    Message 1 of 24 , Dec 18, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      > arguments.

      Dave,

      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+.

      Ron Price

      Derbyshire, UK

      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.