<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Unrounded degrees of freedom in Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37641#M22080</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your reply. I should clarify, though, that I am assuming unequal variance between the two populations, so I do not think the pooled variance is correct here. In order to be more conservative, I would like JMP to use the floor of the&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt; in the calculations for&amp;nbsp;an unpooled t-test. Is this possible?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:13:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>forgottendino</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-03-30T01:13:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Unrounded degrees of freedom</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37626#M22067</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am doing an independent sample t-test, and I've encountered a problem with the degrees of freedom. What I'd like to do is use the floor (13 in the attached analysis), not the unrounded (13.65148), &lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt;, in calculating the confidence interval and &lt;EM&gt;p&lt;/EM&gt; value. Is there a setting I can change in JMP so that it uses the floor of the &lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt;? Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:55:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37626#M22067</guid>
      <dc:creator>forgottendino</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-29T18:55:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unrounded degrees of freedom</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37631#M22070</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I believe that the fractional degrees of freedom for the error arises when you use the unpooled version&amp;nbsp;of the &lt;EM&gt;t&lt;/EM&gt; test. This is correct for that case. The pooled &lt;EM&gt;t&lt;/EM&gt; test does not adjust the DF for the error and is correct if the assumption of equal variance is valid.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:05:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37631#M22070</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-29T19:05:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unrounded degrees of freedom</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37641#M22080</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your reply. I should clarify, though, that I am assuming unequal variance between the two populations, so I do not think the pooled variance is correct here. In order to be more conservative, I would like JMP to use the floor of the&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt; in the calculations for&amp;nbsp;an unpooled t-test. Is this possible?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:13:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37641#M22080</guid>
      <dc:creator>forgottendino</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-30T01:13:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unrounded degrees of freedom</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37647#M22083</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You have two choices. First of all, you could use the built-in function to compute your t test. Use the &lt;STRONG&gt;t quantile( p, df )&lt;/STRONG&gt; function in a column formula or in a script. Truncating the DF is more conservative but it seems arbitrary to me. Second of all, you can simply use a different alpha. Click the red triangle next to Oneway and select a new significance level for computing the confidence intervals. Of course, you can apply a new alpha value in your decision based on the given p-value without change. This way seems better to me because you know how conservative the new t test is.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 09:15:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37647#M22083</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark_Bailey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-30T09:15:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Unrounded degrees of freedom</title>
      <link>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37688#M22093</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you. I've made a table that gives the&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;p&lt;/EM&gt; and confidence interval from given values.&amp;nbsp;My professor for this class prefers rounding down the&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt;, as it is an introductory course and we do many calculations by hand and then look&amp;nbsp;up the value in a table with only integers for &lt;EM&gt;df&lt;/EM&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:14:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.jmp.com/t5/Discussions/Unrounded-degrees-of-freedom/m-p/37688#M22093</guid>
      <dc:creator>forgottendino</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-03-30T17:14:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

