Re: Statistical Conventions in Social Science papers?


cody wrote:
My girlfriend showed me a social science paper that she was
required to read for class. it was written by a European professor
whose English was utterly illiterate.

Is that professor Portuguese? :-)


- The table talked about the "F test with 4 df",

Yes, that is a major blunder since an F-distribution is given
by two degrees-of-freedom numbers.


- The table just gave F-statistics without saying their p-values.
I'm guessing again that that's just poor statistics?

That's more excusable. There are many in THIS group, from
Portuguese to American posters who do not know the meaning
of p-values. The lean on computer manuals that make errors
and assume that a "canned program sold for money" must be
correct, or something to that fallacious effect.


- The paper also said stuff like "2 < 1,3,4" in comparing the group
means. I don't recall seeing that sort of notation in my categorical
data analysis course; it would seem to bring up a multiple testing
issue as well. Is this an accepted convention, or more illiteracy?

That's actually even more excusable on commonsense ground
even though the statement in quote is senseless, and I have never
seen such usage or "notation", but the meaning can be correctly
guessed especially if there are other descriptions that go with
that isolated statement.

But, given the overall impression you got and the errors therein,
there is not much hope that the "paper" can teach anyone
anything other than malpractice Quackery. :-)

-- Reef Fish Bob.

.

Loading