Doubts about NCSS [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by zizou – Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2016-05-26 23:38  – Posting: # 16366
Views: 14,312

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,

REML, it's restricted!

Complete thread:

 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,437 posts in 4,125 threads, 1,325 registered users;
online 11 (1 registered, 10 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 02:52 CEST

On two occasions I have been asked,—“Pray, Mr. Babbage,
if you put into the machine wrong figures,…
will the right answers come out?”

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas
that could provoke such a question.    Charles Babbage

BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz