Doubts about NCSS [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by zizou – Plzeň, Czech Republic, 2016-05-27 01:38 (2947 d 23:59 ago) – Posting: # 16366
Views: 29,820

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:

UA Flag
 Admin contact
23,059 posts in 4,841 threads, 1,663 registered users;
47 visitors (0 registered, 47 guests [including 8 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:38 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

[…] an inappropriate study design is incapable of answering
a research question, no matter how careful the subsequent
methodology, conduct, analysis, and interpretation:
Flawless execution of a flawed design achieves nothing worthwhile.    J. Rick Turner

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz