Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: + + + + + +
great work
:The best reference I’ve seen on chi-square tests is ''Mathematical Statistics with Applications'' by Wackerly et al. Chapter 14 of that book discusses the chi-square test in general and Section 14.4 shows specifically how to analyze contingency tables such as this one. If you don’t have access to that book, Wikipedia gives an alright explanation of the process on the page for “Pearson's chi-square test” under the heading “Test of independence”. [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 12:22, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:The best reference I’ve seen on chi-square tests is ''Mathematical Statistics with Applications'' by Wackerly et al. Chapter 14 of that book discusses the chi-square test in general and Section 14.4 shows specifically how to analyze contingency tables such as this one. If you don’t have access to that book, Wikipedia gives an alright explanation of the process on the page for “Pearson's chi-square test” under the heading “Test of independence”. [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 12:22, 4 March 2009 (EST)
== Great work ==
Great work, SJohnson. I've linked to your entry at the top of the [[Main Page]] today.
The flaws in Lenski's paper is the tip of the iceberg. You might apply your sharp mind to other junk science for everyone's benefit!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 2 July 2009 (EDT)