From: J. Wayde Allen (wallen@lug.boulder.co.us)
Date: 11/09/00-09:45:59 AM Z
On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Katharine Thayer wrote:
> I of course agree with Wayde in principle, that variables acting in
> combination with each other are probably responsible for most of the
> effects we see. If he'd said that and stopped there, I'd have no
> problem. However, to go on from there and say that adopting these
> oversimplified correlation-based multivariate models as the way to find
> out how each variable affects the result in combination with the others,
> shows a certain... lack of familiarity with the models and their
> attendant problems of analysis and interpretation, I'd guess, for which
> I don't fault him.
Thank you! This is all I was getting at. It was never my intention to
insist that everyone here needs to adopt any one particular model or
method. I only wanted to point out that there is a problem, and that
there are methods that if carefully and properly applied could possibly
help deal with this problem. Simply ignoring the issue doesn't make it go
away. Yes, there be dragons here, no matter what method you use to test.
The web sites I listed weren't intended to be the definitive answer or
source. They were simply what I could easily locate in response to the
call for proof and references.
- Wayde
(wallen@lug.boulder.co.us)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/01/00-11:46:56 AM Z CST