Doubts about NCSS [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by zizou – Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2016-05-26 23:38  – Posting: # 16366
Views: 14,729

Dear Helmut.

» Since in this post you reported 9.2 degrees of freedom for the intercept and 5.9 for the slope, why do NCSS’ 90% CIs not agree with the other packages (only the PEs)?

According to provided results, there are differences in Standard Errors. So I guess the differences of 90% CIs are due to SEs. You know [Lower Limit,Upper Limit] = PE ∓ SE*t(1-alpha,df). It seems like only SEs differ from other softwares in the right side of equation. :confused:

From the post with Compilation of results acc. to PEs NCSS uses REML and acc. to degrees of freedom 9.2 and 5.9 NCSS uses Satterthwaite's method. (if not lucky harmony)

Best regards,
zizou

REML, it's restricted!

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,487 posts in 4,135 threads, 1,336 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 6 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 19:34 CEST

If debugging is the process of removing bugs,
then programming must be the process of putting them in.    Edsger W. Dijkstra

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5