Doubts about NCSS [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by zizou – Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2016-05-26 23:38  – Posting: # 16366
Views: 15,195

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
19,537 posts in 4,144 threads, 1,338 registered users;
online 10 (0 registered, 10 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 18:29 CEST

When puzzled, it never hurts to read the primary documents –
a rather simple and self-evident principle that has, nonetheless,
completely disappeared from large sectors
of the American experience.    Stephen Jay Gould

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