Expected values of normal order statistics

Harter, H. Leon

doi:10.1093/biomet/48.1-2.151

Cited by 292 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Anorectal sensory and contraction response data were transformed using normalized ranks 14,15 to accommodate binary outcomes. Intra-rater agreement was estimated using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), calculated according to Shrout 17 The 95%…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra-rater agreement of the anorectal exam and classification of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study design: Intra-rater reliability study, cross-sectional design. Objectives: To report on the intra-rater agreement of the anorectal examinations and classification of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury (SCI). Setting: Two, non-profit children's hospitals specializing in pediatric SCI. Methods: 180 subjects had at least two trials of the anorectal examinations as defined by the International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the agreement. ICC40.90 ¼ high agreement; ICC between 0.75-0.89 ¼ moderate agreement; ICCo0.75 ¼ poor agreement. Results: When evaluated for the entire sample, agreement was moderate-high for anal sensation and contraction and injury classification. When evaluated as a function of age at examination and type of injury, agreement for anal sensation was poor for subjects with tetraplegia in the 12-15-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.56) and 16-21-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.70) and for subjects with paraplegia in the 6-11-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.69). Agreement for anal contraction was moderate for subjects with tetraplegia in the 16-21-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.81) and subjects with paraplegia in the 12-15-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.78) and poor for subjects with paraplegia in the 6-11-year age group (ICC ¼ 0.67). Agreement for injury classification was poor for subjects with tetraplegia in the 12-15-year group (ICC ¼ 0.56) and 16-21-year group (ICC ¼ 0.74) and paraplegia in the 6-11-year group (ICC ¼ 0.11) and 12-15-year group (ICC ¼ 0.63). Anorectal responses had high agreement in subjects with tetraplegia in the 6-11-year group and moderate to high agreement in subjects with paraplegia in the 16-21-year group. Conclusion: The data do not fully support the use of anorectal examination in children. Further work is warranted to establish the validity of anorectal examination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intra-rater agreement of the anorectal exam and classification of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The response Predicted responses were calculated using the formulae presented previously. Values of i and x were obtained from Harter (1961) when selection was from populations of 100 or less, and from tables given by Falconer (1989) for populations larger than 100.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of family and sib selection during selfing

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory is presented and subsequently validated by computer simulation for predicting the difference in response to family and sib selection during selfing. The response is measured by the change in mean and variance of the distribution of inbred lines due to selection. A combined measure of the response is also given by the proportion of lines scoring higher or lower than a given target. Simulation of a highly heritable character under simple genetic control demonstrated the reliability of the theory. However, with a character of moderate heritability involving additive and nonadditive effects, and experimental sizes more common in practice, the differences between family and sib selection proved to be small. This was further confirmed by the sampling variation of the responses.

show abstract

“…Of course he refers here to circumstantial evidence, data inspection and experience. The numerical data, in [ln(days)-1]×1 000 code, are given in Table 8.5.1 and are plotted against the expected values of corresponding normal-order statistics in Figure 8.5.1; the requisite order-statistical values are given by Harter (1961). Such a plot So the model expressed at (8.5.1), as tested, fits the 18 longer survival times very well.…”

Section: An Unneeded Embellishmentmentioning

confidence: 92%

The Epistemology of Statistical Science

Aarde¹

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Expected values of normal order statistics

Cited by 292 publications

References 0 publications

Intra-rater agreement of the anorectal exam and classification of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury

Intra-rater agreement of the anorectal exam and classification of injury severity in children with spinal cord injury

Comparison of family and sib selection during selfing

The Epistemology of Statistical Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About