Being an amateur statistician I find much of the terminology confusing.
I have a large collection of statistics books and I used to search these
to find the most widely used terminology - for the application I was
working on.
Nowadays I tend to start by looking for a BS or ISO standard. They do
exist but are often not used because people do not realize they are
there. The definition I have found for standard error is "The standard
deviation of an estimator" - this is taken from ISO 3534-1 Statistics -
Vocabulary and symbols - Part 1: Probability and general statistical
terms (First Edition 1993).
Sam Ellis
5 Crofters Walk
Bradley Stoke
Bristol
BS32 9BH
Tel: 01454 626406
e-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A UK-based worldwide e-mail broadcast system mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Trevor Lambert
> Sent: 10 October 2002 10:39
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FW: RE: QUERY - SPSS
>
> I think this arises because statistics is more widely used by non-
> specialists than other areas of scientific method, and each group of
non-
> specialists tends to develop its own terminology, often for
mathematically
> similar methods. Sometimes, as in the case of the formulation of
> generalised linear models, it then takes substantial intellectual
effort
> to demonstrate the equivalences.
>
> Trevor Lambert
> UK Medical Careers Research Group
> Institute of Health Sciences
> Oxford University
> Old Road
> Oxford OX3 7LF
> Tel. 01865 226791
> Fax 01865 226993
> Website: http://www.uhce.ox.ac.uk/ukmcrg
>
> >>> Philip McShane <[log in to unmask]> 10/10/02
10:22:06
> >>>
> This discussion of the meaning of 'Standard error' in relation to
> regression seems to me to highlight a serious problem in statistics:
> statisticians use different terms for the same thing, and the same
term
> for different things, on an individualistic basis.
>
> Consider for example the different forms of the Akaike Information
> Criterion, or phrases such as 'the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test'. To say
> they are 'mathematically equivalent' or 'easily converted' is no
excuse;
> would anyone say that centimetres and inches are mathematically
equivalent
> and use them interchangably?
>
> This does not happen so much in other areas of science: chemists know
what
> 'propan-2-ol' is and zoologists what 'Drosophila melanogaster' is.
They
> also know that if they use other terms (such as 'isopropanol') there
is a
> danger of confusion or loss of precision. People even cope with
changes,
> as long as these are agreed upon.
>
> A bit more standardisation would be a good idea.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Phil
>
> Phil McShane
> Nuffield dept of Surgery
> John Radcliffe Hosp
> Headington
> Oxford
> OX3 9DU
>
> (+)1865 220042
> fax (+)1865 768876
> 8 Manor Way
> Kidlington
> Oxon OX5 2BD
> 01865 378497
|