Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: "Ray Koopman" <koopman@xxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Jun 2006 23:05:52 -0700
Bruce Weaver wrote:
Here is one article you might find interesting from a recent issue of
Statistics in Medicine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE
Statist. Med. 2006; 25:127-141
Published online 11 October 2005 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea
Patrick Royston; Douglas G. Altman and Willi Sauerbrei
[...]
I think that methodologists are pretty much unanimous that heavily
quantizing -- especially dichotomizing -- a pre-existing continuous or
quasi-continuous measure is almost never a good idea. However, I think
the OP's question is a little different: How close to continuous
should a subjective rating scale be? When will a dichotomy suffice?
If a more finely graded scale is needed, how much finer should it be?
I don't think there is, or can be, a simple general answer to this
question. It will depend on too many details of the situation, some of
which (such as loss functions) may be subjective. Nevertheless, I seem
to remember encountering from time to time (and mostly many years ago)
convention presentations, MA and BA theses, etc, with titles such as
"A comparison of different rating scales for assessing XYZ", so
they're out there somewhere.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Bruce Weaver
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Prev by Date: Re: compare 2 odds ratios
- Next by Date: 2 (measured) x 2 (between subjects) x 2 (between subjects) MANOVA
- Previous by thread: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Next by thread: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
