<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
  <title>MedStats Google Group</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats</link>
  <description>A discussion group for anyone with an interest in Medical Statistics.</description>
  <language>en-GB</language>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/a2e8ef8e5fad4fb7?show_docid=a2e8ef8e5fad4fb7</link>
  <description>
  Thomas, &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;What I mean by response bias is whether an individual is responding to your symptom questionnaire in a reliable and valid manner. Most symptom questionnaires do not have any internal scales or indices to determine this. By contrast, of the personality assessment scales, the MMPI-2 and the recent MMPI-2-RF have several scales assessing validity:
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/a2e8ef8e5fad4fb7?show_docid=a2e8ef8e5fad4fb7</guid>
  <author>
  srmil...@yahoo.com
  (SR Millis)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 22:59:36 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: Population Attributable Risk (PAR) from Cross Sectional Studies?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/101439103d4fbc9f/bdfd3de4a3d6fafb?show_docid=bdfd3de4a3d6fafb</link>
  <description>
  While I can see how the idea of population attributable risk is &lt;br&gt; appealing in terms of translating results, it is still only a &lt;br&gt; numerical calculation based on study data. As such there are several &lt;br&gt; issues. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Cross sectional studies, as you indicate are inadequate for causal &lt;br&gt; inference because of temporality. So I would not use one to calculate
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/101439103d4fbc9f/bdfd3de4a3d6fafb?show_docid=bdfd3de4a3d6fafb</guid>
  <author>
  mca...@yahoo.com
  (mcap)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:19:55 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Population Attributable Risk (PAR) from Cross Sectional Studies?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/101439103d4fbc9f/5f7081b6ba5ad22f?show_docid=5f7081b6ba5ad22f</link>
  <description>
  Hello Forumers: &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;I have a question. I am trying to wrap my head around the calculation &lt;br&gt; and use of Population Attributable Risk based on a cross sectional &lt;br&gt; study. &lt;br&gt; From my basic epidemiology courses, I have come to understand that &lt;br&gt; such an estimate is only reasonable when one can make plausible &lt;br&gt; assumptions of causality. Given that cross sectional studies are
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/101439103d4fbc9f/5f7081b6ba5ad22f?show_docid=5f7081b6ba5ad22f</guid>
  <author>
  jeam...@gmail.com
  (Shaibu)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:58:50 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: confidence interval calculation</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/a526554cbade8886/1214a724f0e16819?show_docid=1214a724f0e16819</link>
  <description>
  Hi Ellen, &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;I&#39;d like to refer you to this link: &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.indicators.scot.nhs.uk/Trends_Jan_2009/Standard.htm&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;and to this link &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;a target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=nofollow href=&quot;http://www.indicators.scot.nhs.uk/Work/CISTWorkingPaper3July13th20011.htm&quot;&gt;[link]&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Here it says that logistic regression and indirect standardisation are equivalent only with a fully saturated logistic model, that is with all main effects and all interactions....a bit much with 8 independent variables. The second link discusses the pros/cons of removal of (interaction) terms from the model. And whether using logistic regression is better than the &#39;manual&#39; method.
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/a526554cbade8886/1214a724f0e16819?show_docid=1214a724f0e16819</guid>
  <author>
  m861h...@btinternet.com
  (Martin Holt)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:57:09 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/1fd32e8222480cf1?show_docid=1fd32e8222480cf1</link>
  <description>
  Hi Adrian &lt;br&gt; Proc Traj can be thought of as a special case of a latent class model. &lt;br&gt; (Specifically, if you do a latent class model with groups defined on &lt;br&gt; the slopes and intercepts, and you fix the variances of the latent &lt;br&gt; variables within groups to zero, you&#39;ve got a proc traj model). &lt;br&gt; It&#39;s sort of zero inflated Poisson, but it&#39;s not really because the
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/1fd32e8222480cf1?show_docid=1fd32e8222480cf1</guid>
  <author>
  jeremy.mi...@gmail.com
  (Jeremy Miles)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:09:28 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/227b17a659763f13?show_docid=227b17a659763f13</link>
  <description>
  Thomas Fröjd &amp;lt;tfr...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote &lt;br&gt; OK, now you&#39;ve got 6 scores (3 at each time point, instead of 1). With this, there &lt;br&gt; are a lot more possibilities. &lt;br&gt; Again, I&#39;d start with graphs .... x axis would be time, y axis score, and a line for each person &lt;br&gt; on each pair of measures. Whether this can be done on one graph depends on N. If you have more than
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/227b17a659763f13?show_docid=227b17a659763f13</guid>
  <author>
  peterflomconsult...@mindspring.com
  (Peter Flom)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:19:00 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/b643e73ef16c058d?show_docid=b643e73ef16c058d</link>
  <description>
  These are known by other names, too, such as &amp;quot;lie scales&amp;quot;; the intent is to &lt;br&gt; detect people who are giving incorrect answers on purpose, to appear &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;bad&amp;quot;. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;The best known of these is, I think, the Crowne-Marlowe (sp?) scale. They often ask respondents to respond to &lt;br&gt; statements that very few people could honestly endorse ....
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/b643e73ef16c058d?show_docid=b643e73ef16c058d</guid>
  <author>
  peterflomconsult...@mindspring.com
  (Peter Flom)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:53:23 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/680ecbd875b2b7a0?show_docid=680ecbd875b2b7a0</link>
  <description>
  Hi SR Millis &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;We have been using the IES-R (R for revised) scale, the 22 questions &lt;br&gt; version. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;I must admit I don&#39;t really know what a response bias scale is. The &lt;br&gt; things I have read about response bias mostly takes it up in the &lt;br&gt; context of survey design and how to design questions. As I understand
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/680ecbd875b2b7a0?show_docid=680ecbd875b2b7a0</guid>
  <author>
  tfr...@gmail.com
  (Thomas Fröjd)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:31:18 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Ratios as DVs and IVs: BMI (was Re: Interestingresults, how to deal with these interaction effects?)</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/4fda8db828c4a17b/5b8c05d0dc0c4044?show_docid=5b8c05d0dc0c4044</link>
  <description>
  Hi John. I have no poison arrows. But, in the examples of BMI&#39;s &lt;br&gt; usefulness you provide above, it is used as an explanatory variable. &lt;br&gt; Kronmal addresses this situation in his article, and argues pretty &lt;br&gt; persuasively (I think) that one is better off including height and &lt;br&gt; weight (and possibly their product) as terms in the model. One
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/4fda8db828c4a17b/5b8c05d0dc0c4044?show_docid=5b8c05d0dc0c4044</guid>
  <author>
  bwea...@lakeheadu.ca
  (Bruce Weaver)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:23:32 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>RE: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two ti</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/0165b5a77515cd0a?show_docid=0165b5a77515cd0a</link>
  <description>
  That&#39;s nothing! (And it&#39;s quite easily done). Once upon a time &lt;br&gt; it was the only way to do such things (in the absence of a pen &lt;br&gt; plotter, which was cutting-edge technology at the time). &lt;br&gt; People are very used to things like Tukey&#39;s box-plot which was &lt;br&gt; first developed back in the 1960&#39;s &amp;amp; 70&#39;s when all that most people
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/0165b5a77515cd0a?show_docid=0165b5a77515cd0a</guid>
  <author>
  ted.hard...@manchester.ac.uk
  (Ted Harding)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:17:12 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/dc0f6b66d38ad30d?show_docid=dc0f6b66d38ad30d</link>
  <description>
  I&#39;m coming late to this discussion, so this question may have already been answered. Does your PTSD scale have an response bias scale to rule out symptoms over endsorsement or under endorsement? PTSD is quite easy to &amp;quot;fake&amp;quot; on essentially every PTSD scale I&#39;ve ever encountered. &lt;br&gt; SR Millis
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/dc0f6b66d38ad30d?show_docid=dc0f6b66d38ad30d</guid>
  <author>
  srmil...@yahoo.com
  (SR Millis)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:45:57 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/9b0e5b3c51f56bb6?show_docid=9b0e5b3c51f56bb6</link>
  <description>
  Hi &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;There are subscales. Intrusion, avoidance and hyperarousal. Looking &lt;br&gt; for patterns in change between the individuals sounds like a great &lt;br&gt; idea. Any ideas about how this could be done? &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;On 5 Nov, 12:36, Peter Flom &amp;lt;peterflomconsult...@mindsprin g.com&amp;gt; &lt;br&gt; wrote:
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/9b0e5b3c51f56bb6?show_docid=9b0e5b3c51f56bb6</guid>
  <author>
  tfr...@gmail.com
  (Thomas Fröjd)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:29:33 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/edd5981f46048074?show_docid=edd5981f46048074</link>
  <description>
  I wonder if you have thought about latent class modeling. I dont know &lt;br&gt; a great deal about it, but it sounds like it may be the thing your &lt;br&gt; after. as it look at patterns within data and how they change over &lt;br&gt; time. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;From the guys i know that use this, they all do it in m-plus. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;I am no expert, but might be worth a look
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/edd5981f46048074?show_docid=edd5981f46048074</guid>
  <author>
  adriansay...@gmail.com
  (Adrian Sayers)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:21:17 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Re: Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/882bccfe303719f9?show_docid=882bccfe303719f9</link>
  <description>
  Thomas Fröjd &amp;lt;tfr...@gmail.com&amp;gt; wrote &lt;br&gt; You&#39;re certainly welcome! Interesting discussion, and I&#39;m learning, too. &lt;br&gt; That makes sense. &lt;br&gt; Now we get into &amp;quot;what the data show&amp;quot; vs. &amp;quot;what theory says&amp;quot;. I know a bit about PTSD, and I don&#39;t think &amp;quot;low&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;high&amp;quot; adequately describe the possibilities. For one thing, there are subscales to PTSD. Do you have subscale scores?
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/6c744750f8dc0df0/882bccfe303719f9?show_docid=882bccfe303719f9</guid>
  <author>
  peterflomconsult...@mindspring.com
  (Peter Flom)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:36:41 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
  <title>Re: {MEDSTATS} Trajectory modelling, useful with only two timepoints?</title>
  <link>http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/ec20a53180768d0d/a295f2e0fe13650e?show_docid=a295f2e0fe13650e</link>
  <description>
  Hi, Thank you all for your timely replies. &lt;br&gt; &lt;p&gt;Let me clearify the reson behind the analysis first. As Peter and Jeff &lt;br&gt; pointed out, two measures are not really a repeated measures study and &lt;br&gt; not enough to model growth properly. This data is from the first &lt;br&gt; follow up in a cohort study and will in the future be extended with
  </description>
  <guid isPermaLink="true">http://groups.google.com/group/medstats/browse_thread/thread/ec20a53180768d0d/a295f2e0fe13650e?show_docid=a295f2e0fe13650e</guid>
  <author>
  tfr...@gmail.com
  (Thomas Fröjd)
  </author>
  <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:52:36 UT
</pubDate>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
