Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: "John Uebersax" <jsuebersax@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Jun 2006 00:26:30 -0700
Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
Anything is better than a binary variable. The more levels the better.
Then should we scrap cancer staging systems and replace them with
100-point scales?
John
--
John Uebersax PhD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Frank E Harrell Jr
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- References:
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Bruce Weaver
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Ray Koopman
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Frank E Harrell Jr
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Prev by Date: AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process)
- Next by Date: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- 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):
