|
| Alexandre:
Studying
|
|
 |
|
 |
Alexandre: Studying the post and the follow-up caormping the DDS assessment to SEV should help you. There is no allegation here that the results provide evidence for the precise truth of the null. What I wrote is that in case 1, the DDS assessor would take the result as a good indication that μ < 3.29. Second case: For σx = 2, the cut-off for rejection would be 0 + 1.65(2) = 3.30.So, in the second case (σx = 2) the probability of erroneously accepting H0, even if μ were as high as 3.29, is .5! So (Neyman’s) DDS assessor would not take the result as a good indication that μ < 3.29. It passes with poor severity. I'm just repeating what I already wrote.The SEV assessment gives a more custom-tailored assessment. In the follow-up post I compared these DDS assessments to the data-dependent construals recommended by SEV, focusing on case 2: “What is the Severity with which (μ<3.29) passes the test T+ in the case where σx = 2? …..SEV(μ 1.4; μ >3.29) > P(Z > (1.4 -3.29)/2)) * = P(Z > -1.89/2) = P(Z > -.945 ) ~ .83.†Once again, it is always a specific upper bound that is assessed for SEV. Alternatively, one may start with a desired SEV value and compute the value for μ’ such that μ ; μ < μ’ is warranted at that level. You say no one is helping you, but if you avail yourself of all the material provided (published papers go beyond the mini examples worked in the blog), you would help yourself. Perhaps do case 1, to check understanding.
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Chavica
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
17 december 2014, 11:17:19
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
159.182.219.1
|
|
|
|
