Notice.....

...... understand statistical analysis, or does he make it up as he goes
along his intended route to harassment and disruption of this ng and
discussion of the topic of this ng?

Well, recently he spouted nonsense that this study is
about"reprimands," in some "conclusion" not visible as a title
or word used in the report.

The facts?

"Reprimands" are one of the items tracked. And they all track
responses to change in parental behavior and use of methods, as he
demanded we provide, that do not include CP.

In the instructions to the observer teams from the appendix, S-P
OBSERVATION CODE, Page 6, it is called PARENTAL VERBAL NEGATIVES.

The capper should be, for anyone that noticed was his insistence that
"Figure 7" represented occurrences of the use of reprimands.

Later I'll explain just what the intent of Figure 7 actually was, and
what it actually charted.

In fact reprimands were so difficult to track that they had next to the
lowest percentage of "Reliability" (these days referred to as
"Confidence Score"). Only 74% agreement between the two person team
of observers during 12 home visits (observations).

There appear to have been as many as 23 such events of reprimands, but
since the reliability score is only 74%, then it is highly likely (and
a statistical given) that .74 x 23, or 17.2 reprimands in the window of
observation is the correct number. It must be used for any further
statistical analysis and of course why there are two observers and a
reliability score...it's error control.

And, what is most telling about this claim of doan't's, is that this
study is about "reprimands," when the chart I drew this information
from, Table 6, page 29, has four other parental responses tracked.
Other charts track other responses from both child and parent.

In fact, if "reprimands" are what teach a child to stay away from
the street, by volume, it falls far short of what more likely, from the
Safe Play workbook and training, had the desired result: Praise. From
the same chart on Reliability:

Parental praise - 15 observations, 110 agreements, 43 disagreements
(the two observers did not score the number the same, of course) for a
72% reliability score. .72 of 153 possible results in 110.16
statistically likely incidences of praise.

To understand the significance, of course one must account for the
"difference" number of instances of observation between the two. 12 for
reprimands, 15 for praise.

Or 17.2/12 = 1.43 reprimands per observation, and 110.16/15 = 7.34
praises per observation.

Over 5 times more praising then reprimanding.

For those interested, there were only 2 instances of physical
punishment or "force" (described as pulling, pushing, squeezing
hard, or hitting). Was spanking every used? It's impossible to say.

It could have been when the observers were not present. The other 23.5
hours in the day were not observed. The chance they were, prior to the
study? About 90%, according to other surveys oft quoted in this
newsgroup.

Maybe spanking was being used out of sight and did the real training.
0;-

And Figure 7? The one doan't cited to explain that this study was
"about" "reprimands?"

All it was was an estimate by the researchers and the report authors
using standard game theory statistical calculations on their body of
data on the probability of just when a reprimand MIGHT take place by
the parent in the future, given the child was going to, and did make a
street entry.

Interesting, as the authors pointed out, but NOT conclusive in that
this was any kind of accurate prediction of reality, NOR was it a COUNT
of any kind.

It's title and author comments?

"The Probability of Parental Reprimands Occurring Before, During, and
After Children's Entry Into the Street."

Why this would mislead someone of doan's claimed familiarity with
statistical analysis and comprehension to his announced conclusion is
beyond me, other than the speculation I offered at the opening of this
post.

How could he have missed the title AND the comments on page 45 as to
the nature of this statistical calculation?

"Figure seven shows THE PROBABILITY of observed children receiving a
reprimand.......," and "The figure offers data of THEORETICAL
INTEREST." (emphasis mine)

The paragraph goes on to use "probability" again in describing the
finding.

How anyone could read the title of the report, and this paragraph, and
the chart title and presume this study comes to a conclusion that it is
about "reprimands" makes obvious we have a very stupid, or a very
clever boy in our midst, and have had for years.

If he's stupid, well that can be changed in time by exposure to
thinking discipline, with practice, and relieving his obvious ignorance
by more exposure to facts and their explanation.

If he is smart?

Well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I've speculated in
the past.

The next question for us should be, are we going to allow him to
continue what I believe to be his deliberate and violent disruptive
destruction of a forum for serious discussion of this issue, just as
the final chapters on childhood CP are being written out in the real
world?

Why should we?

Kane

YES! ;-)

AFfromDreamLand

On 28 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:

..... understand statistical analysis, or does he make it up as he goes
along his intended route to harassment and disruption of this ng and
discussion of the topic of this ng?

Well, recently he spouted nonsense that this study is
about"reprimands," in some "conclusion" not visible as a title
or word used in the report.

The facts?

"Reprimands" are one of the items tracked. And they all track
responses to change in parental behavior and use of methods, as he
demanded we provide, that do not include CP.

In the instructions to the observer teams from the appendix, S-P
OBSERVATION CODE, Page 6, it is called PARENTAL VERBAL NEGATIVES.

The capper should be, for anyone that noticed was his insistence that
"Figure 7" represented occurrences of the use of reprimands.

Later I'll explain just what the intent of Figure 7 actually was, and
what it actually charted.

In fact reprimands were so difficult to track that they had next to the
lowest percentage of "Reliability" (these days referred to as
"Confidence Score"). Only 74% agreement between the two person team
of observers during 12 home visits (observations).

There appear to have been as many as 23 such events of reprimands, but
since the reliability score is only 74%, then it is highly likely (and
a statistical given) that .74 x 23, or 17.2 reprimands in the window of
observation is the correct number. It must be used for any further
statistical analysis and of course why there are two observers and a
reliability score...it's error control.

And, what is most telling about this claim of doan't's, is that this
study is about "reprimands," when the chart I drew this information
from, Table 6, page 29, has four other parental responses tracked.
Other charts track other responses from both child and parent.

In fact, if "reprimands" are what teach a child to stay away from
the street, by volume, it falls far short of what more likely, from the
Safe Play workbook and training, had the desired result: Praise. From
the same chart on Reliability:

Parental praise - 15 observations, 110 agreements, 43 disagreements
(the two observers did not score the number the same, of course) for a
72% reliability score. .72 of 153 possible results in 110.16
statistically likely incidences of praise.

To understand the significance, of course one must account for the
"difference" number of instances of observation between the two. 12 for
reprimands, 15 for praise.

Or 17.2/12 = 1.43 reprimands per observation, and 110.16/15 = 7.34
praises per observation.

Over 5 times more praising then reprimanding.

For those interested, there were only 2 instances of physical
punishment or "force" (described as pulling, pushing, squeezing
hard, or hitting). Was spanking every used? It's impossible to say.

It could have been when the observers were not present. The other 23.5
hours in the day were not observed. The chance they were, prior to the
study? About 90%, according to other surveys oft quoted in this
newsgroup.

Maybe spanking was being used out of sight and did the real training.
0;-

And Figure 7? The one doan't cited to explain that this study was
"about" "reprimands?"

All it was was an estimate by the researchers and the report authors
using standard game theory statistical calculations on their body of
data on the probability of just when a reprimand MIGHT take place by
the parent in the future, given the child was going to, and did make a
street entry.

Interesting, as the authors pointed out, but NOT conclusive in that
this was any kind of accurate prediction of reality, NOR was it a COUNT
of any kind.

It's title and author comments?

"The Probability of Parental Reprimands Occurring Before, During, and
After Children's Entry Into the Street."

Why this would mislead someone of doan's claimed familiarity with
statistical analysis and comprehension to his announced conclusion is
beyond me, other than the speculation I offered at the opening of this
post.

How could he have missed the title AND the comments on page 45 as to
the nature of this statistical calculation?

"Figure seven shows THE PROBABILITY of observed children receiving a
reprimand.......," and "The figure offers data of THEORETICAL
INTEREST." (emphasis mine)

The paragraph goes on to use "probability" again in describing the
finding.

How anyone could read the title of the report, and this paragraph, and
the chart title and presume this study comes to a conclusion that it is
about "reprimands" makes obvious we have a very stupid, or a very
clever boy in our midst, and have had for years.

If he's stupid, well that can be changed in time by exposure to
thinking discipline, with practice, and relieving his obvious ignorance
by more exposure to facts and their explanation.

If he is smart?

Well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I've speculated in
the past.

The next question for us should be, are we going to allow him to
continue what I believe to be his deliberate and violent disruptive
destruction of a forum for serious discussion of this issue, just as
the final chapters on childhood CP are being written out in the real
world?

Why should we?

Kane

....... understand statistical analysis, or does he make it up as he goes
along his intended route to harassment and disruption of this ng and
discussion of the topic of this ng?

Well, recently he spouted nonsense that this study is
about"reprimands," in some "conclusion" not visible as a title
or word used in the report.

The facts?

"Reprimands" are one of the items tracked. And they all track
responses to change in parental behavior and use of methods, as he
demanded we provide, that do not include CP.

In the instructions to the observer teams from the appendix, S-P
OBSERVATION CODE, Page 6, it is called PARENTAL VERBAL NEGATIVES.

The capper should be, for anyone that noticed was his insistence that
"Figure 7" represented occurrences of the use of reprimands.

Later I'll explain just what the intent of Figure 7 actually was, and
what it actually charted.

In fact reprimands were so difficult to track that they had next to the
lowest percentage of "Reliability" (these days referred to as
"Confidence Score"). Only 74% agreement between the two person team
of observers during 12 home visits (observations).

There appear to have been as many as 23 such events of reprimands, but
since the reliability score is only 74%, then it is highly likely (and
a statistical given) that .74 x 23, or 17.2 reprimands in the window of
observation is the correct number. It must be used for any further
statistical analysis and of course why there are two observers and a
reliability score...it's error control.

And, what is most telling about this claim of doan't's, is that this
study is about "reprimands," when the chart I drew this information
from, Table 6, page 29, has four other parental responses tracked.
Other charts track other responses from both child and parent.

In fact, if "reprimands" are what teach a child to stay away from
the street, by volume, it falls far short of what more likely, from the
Safe Play workbook and training, had the desired result: Praise. From
the same chart on Reliability:

Parental praise - 15 observations, 110 agreements, 43 disagreements
(the two observers did not score the number the same, of course) for a
72% reliability score. .72 of 153 possible results in 110.16
statistically likely incidences of praise.

To understand the significance, of course one must account for the
"difference" number of instances of observation between the two. 12 for
reprimands, 15 for praise.

Or 17.2/12 = 1.43 reprimands per observation, and 110.16/15 = 7.34
praises per observation.

Over 5 times more praising then reprimanding.

For those interested, there were only 2 instances of physical
punishment or "force" (described as pulling, pushing, squeezing
hard, or hitting). Was spanking every used? It's impossible to say.

It could have been when the observers were not present. The other 23.5
hours in the day were not observed. The chance they were, prior to the
study? About 90%, according to other surveys oft quoted in this
newsgroup.

Maybe spanking was being used out of sight and did the real training.
0;-

And Figure 7? The one doan't cited to explain that this study was
"about" "reprimands?"

All it was was an estimate by the researchers and the report authors
using standard game theory statistical calculations on their body of
data on the probability of just when a reprimand MIGHT take place by
the parent in the future, given the child was going to, and did make a
street entry.

Interesting, as the authors pointed out, but NOT conclusive in that
this was any kind of accurate prediction of reality, NOR was it a COUNT
of any kind.

It's title and author comments?

"The Probability of Parental Reprimands Occurring Before, During, and
After Children's Entry Into the Street."

Why this would mislead someone of doan's claimed familiarity with
statistical analysis and comprehension to his announced conclusion is
beyond me, other than the speculation I offered at the opening of this
post.

How could he have missed the title AND the comments on page 45 as to
the nature of this statistical calculation?

"Figure seven shows THE PROBABILITY of observed children receiving a
reprimand.......," and "The figure offers data of THEORETICAL
INTEREST." (emphasis mine)

The paragraph goes on to use "probability" again in describing the
finding.

How anyone could read the title of the report, and this paragraph, and
the chart title and presume this study comes to a conclusion that it is
about "reprimands" makes obvious we have a very stupid, or a very
clever boy in our midst, and have had for years.

If he's stupid, well that can be changed in time by exposure to
thinking discipline, with practice, and relieving his obvious ignorance
by more exposure to facts and their explanation.

If he is smart?

Well, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. I've speculated in
the past.

The next question for us should be, are we going to allow him to
continue what I believe to be his deliberate and violent disruptive
destruction of a forum for serious discussion of this issue, just as
the final chapters on childhood CP are being written out in the real
world?

Why should we?

Kane