Dear Burke
I would not consider p=0.05. I would calculate teh exact p and them think
about my problem.
Basilio
Burke Johnson Escreveu:
> Hello list members,
>
> I have a question for you: Would you advocate "case 1" or "case 2" below (or do you have a preferred "case 3")?
>
> Case 1.
> If p is less than or equal to alpha, then reject null.
> If p is greater than alpha, then fail to reject null.
>
> Case 2.
> If p is less than alpha, then reject null.
> If p is greater than or equal to alpha, then fail to reject null.
>
> As you can see, for completeness I'm asking for your thoughts about the highly unlikely (but possible) situation where p=alpha.
>
> For example, when using an alpha level of .05, what would you do in the unlikely situation where the observed p-value is equal to .05 (i.e., alpha is set at .05 and the observed p=.05 to as many places as the computer prints out).
>
> If you recommended case 1, I have a follow-up question about rounding: What observed p-value would you consider close enough to be considered "equal to .05" in the procedure? (The late Jacob Cohen offered a convention that a p-value of .00 to .05 was sufficiently small, but .051-1.00 was not sufficiently small to reject the null).
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts!
>
> Burke Johnson
>
> You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
>
> SIGNOFF allstat
>
> to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
Basilio de Bragança Pereira
*Titular Professor of Bioestatistics and of Applied Statistics
*FM-School of Medicine and COPPE-Posgraduate School of Engineering and
HUCFF-University Hospital Clementino Fraga Filho.
*UFRJ-Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
*Tel: (55 21) 2562-2594 or /2558/7045
www.po.ufrj.br/basilio/
*MailAddress:
COPPE/UFRJ
Caixa Postal 68507
CEP 21941-972 Rio de Janeiro,RJ
Brasil
You may leave the list at any time by sending the command
SIGNOFF allstat
to [log in to unmask], leaving the subject line blank.
|