4 8 15 16 23 42 (The Lost Numbers, sacrificed to StataList)
This discussion has helped me to think through the issues I asked about. I
appreciate the time that everyone took to comment. I will consider all of
the suggestions and make a closure post to describe my final approach.
--Rich
Richard A. Forshee, Ph.D.
University of Maryland--College Park
Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Samuels
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: st: Standard error of the estimate for svy: reg
Mike, I've acknowledged that different fields use different
nomenclature. I really don't want to spend my own time discussing
the issue. Others are welcome to do so.
-Steve
On Aug 22, 2007, at 4:31 PM, Michael Hanson wrote:
> 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/
Steven Samuels
[email protected]
18 Cantine's Island
Saugerties, NY 12477
Phone: 845-246-0774
EFax: 208-498-7441
*
* 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/
*
* 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/
