Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 12:33 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Doubts about NCSS [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by zizou - Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2016-05-26 23:38  - Posting: # 16366
Views: 12,045

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
19,032 posts in 4,059 threads, 1,299 registered users;
online 18 (1 registered, 17 guests [including 12 identified bots]).

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible,
he is very probably wrong.    Arthur C. Clarke

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