Re: st: Standard error of the estimate for svy: reg

[Michael Hanson <mshanson@mac.com>]

On Aug 22, 2007, at 3:23 PM, Steven Samuels wrote:

> I'll leave this topic with the following reference:
>
> http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/331/7521/903
>
> Steve
	Since you've left this topic, you've foreclosed any opportunity to  
clarify the relevance of that citation.  In my very quick read of it,  
nothing in the second- and third-to-last paragraphs seems to be  
inconsistent with the use of the terminology "standard error of the  
estimate" (or "standard error of the regression") that we have  
previously established is not uncommon in certain social sciences but  
apparently unknown to at least some people in other (biomedical?)  
fields;  the remaining paragraphs appear to discuss other topics.  I  
personally don't see a problem with different fields having different  
nomenclatures, and the point of my previous message was simply to  
indicate that the questioned term is not uncommon in certain (broad)  
fields of applied statistics.

	With the discussion abruptly ended I gather that the implication was  
meant to be that certain fields (viz. the social sciences) were  
misusing a term.  I would be interested in learning the substance of  
that argument, if in fact that was the case.  Otherwise I am still  
puzzling over the contribution of the citation to the prior exchange.

                                        -- Mike

P.S.:  Stas's argument against the use of the RMSE/SEE in the OP's  
question sounds valid to me, but I do not claim any familiarity with  
estimation using survey data.

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/