Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Al Doggity on December 19, 2014, 10:29:43 AM
-
So, this is a question another poster and I have had and rather than hijack a thread, was hoping the helpful GetBlerg family could help us out with maths and sciences.
A government poll in crime can be found at this link:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Some of the poll questions have fewer than 10 respondents.
Under a section titled "Standard Error Computations" there is the following line:
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
-
It means that the sample size (number of respondents) compared to the population is not large enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.
-
It means that the sample size (number of respondents) compared to the population is not large enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.
Are you sure? Couldn't it also mean that the scientists who conducted the poll weighted the study so that the 10 people who responded could accurately represent the national trend?
-
Are you sure? Couldn't it also mean that the scientists who conducted the poll weighted the study so that the 10 people who responded could accurately represent the national trend?
That would be statistically impossible. 10 people cannot possibly speak for a nation.
-
That would be statistically impossible. 10 people cannot possibly speak for a nation.
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
-
What if you interviewed 150,000 people, then took the most relevant 10 from the sample of 150,000. Wouldn't that make the numbers more reliable?
I now realize that I am being trolled. Well played.
I'm out.
-
I now realize that I am being trolled. Well played.
I'm out.
Yes, Archer77 is an idiot. He made these very suggestions in a recent post regarding that study. He's a dishonest man.
-
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Do you think this means that the data is extremely reliable or that the people who put together the poll feel it might be unreliable?
When you calculate the coefficient of variation when looking at things like population-based surveys and/or something like a census, it is employed in order to determine sampling error. The coefficient variation is used to determine the reliability of a sample. You get what this means?
So, for instance, a coefficient variation figure that is low indicates that the sampling error is also low relative to the estimate, this allows for a statistician to assume that the estimate is a pretty solid guess to the population value.
What you need to keep in mind is that the lower the CV value, the more reliable the results of a survey or census are. The higher the CV value, the more inclined that survey is to sampling error (i.e. unreliable results).
"1"
-
When you calculate the coefficient of variation when looking at things like population-based surveys and/or something like a census, it is employed in order to determine sampling error. The coefficient variation is used to determine the reliability of a sample. You get what this means?
So, for instance, a coefficient variation figure that is low indicates that the sampling error is also low relative to the estimate, this allows for a statistician to assume that the estimate is a pretty solid guess to the population value.
What you need to keep in mind is that the lower the CV value, the more reliable the results of a survey or census are. The higher the CV value, the more inclined that survey is to sampling error (i.e. unreliable results).
"1"
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
-
I believe it (CoV) can also indicate how likely the results may be to change if you were to have a larger sample since your true "mean" likely lies somewhere within it. Typically the more samples you collect, the smaller it will be until you have sampled everyone and have the true mean and variance.
For example if it is very big (no homo), then your observed mean could be way off from the true mean, if it is very small then probably will not get a starkly different result with more bodybuilders in your study.
10 is clearly nowhere near big enough to say anything meaningful about the national level. We call this the "traumatic ocular", i.e. something that is obviously right or wrong without any formal statistical backing.
-
I believe it (CoV) can also indicate how likely the results may be to change if you were to have a larger sample since your true "mean" likely lies somewhere within it. Typically the more samples you collect, the smaller it will be until you have sampled everyone and have the true mean and variance.
For example if it is very big (no homo), then your observed mean could be way off from the true mean, if it is very small then probably will not get a starkly different result with more bodybuilders in your study.
10 is clearly nowhere near big enough to say anything meaningful about the national level. We call this the "traumatic ocular", i.e. something that is obviously right or wrong without any formal statistical backing.
So, basically, 10 is too small of a sample size to be accurate? And that line from the opening post is saying as much?
-
So, basically, 10 is too small of a sample size to be accurate? And that line from the opening post is saying as much?
It looks to me like it is saying potentially two different things, that either N≤10 or the CoV≥50%. There are cases where these things are okay, but to represent a national sample the former is too small, and the latter is very large, in my opinion.
More N is not always better, this a common misunderstanding of statistics by the unwashed lay population. For example there is a well-known study on cancer that says taking a multivitamin increases your cancer risk, but it was because they had hundreds of thousands of people in the study and every tiny little observed difference becomes "significant" with a sample that large. Taking the multivitamin does not meaningfully increase your risk of cancer.
But in this case I agree that N=10 is far too small yes.
-
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
-
Depends, is that sample group composed of Sheldon Adelson and 9 other of America's richest people?
Another way of looking at it is by asking if the 538 presidential electors that make up the electoral college are a reliable-enough group to chose our president every 4 years (Keeping in mind that there are 316 Million Americans)?
No is the straightforward answer to your question. A sample of 10 people can not give you a reliable national statistic.
"1"
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
-
It means that the sample size (number of respondents) compared to the population is not large enough to draw statistically valid conclusions.
THIS
-
Exactly. But more importantly... that's exactly what quoted text from the study is saying, too.
I only looked at one of the reports but the number of results with the ! looks to be very small and not frequent. Most of them have samples in the thousands. So you will need to temper your conclusion if you are wanting to use the presence of the ! anywhere to reject the entirety of the data within this archive. But for specific results marked with the !, they are very likely not valid yes.
-
That would be statistically impossible. 10 people cannot possibly speak for a nation.
This is the methodology.
In 2013, 90,630 households and 160,040 persons age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States are excluded. In 2013, less than 1% of the unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United States and are excluded from analyses of NCVS data.
Estimates in NCVS reports typically use data from the 1993 to 2013 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Since the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.
-
I only looked at one of the reports but the number of results with the ! looks to be very small and not frequent. Most of them have samples in the thousands. So you will need to temper your conclusion if you are wanting to use the presence of the ! anywhere to reject the entirety of the data within this archive. But for specific results marked with the !, they are very likely not valid yes.
My point is specifically for cases containing 10 or less sample studies.
-
My point is specifically for cases containing 10 or less sample studies.
You said they don't use weighing adjustments.
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appendices/appendix_04.html
In addition, some differences in the data from the two programs may result from sampling variation in the NCVS and from estimating for nonresponse in the UCR. The BJS derives the NCVS estimates from interviewing a sample and are, therefore, subject to a margin of error. The BJS uses rigorous statistical methods to calculate confidence intervals around all survey estimates. The BJS describes trend data in the NCVS reports as genuine only if there is at least a 90-percent certainty that the measured changes are not the result of sampling variation. The UCR Program bases its data on the actual counts of offenses reported by law enforcement agencies. In some circumstances, the UCR Program estimates its data for nonparticipating agencies or those reporting partial data.
Apparent discrepancies between statistics from the two programs can usually be accounted for by their definitional and procedural differences or resolved by comparing NCVS sampling variations (confidence intervals) of those crimes said to have been reported to police with UCR statistics.
-
This is the methodology.
In 2013, 90,630 households and 160,040 persons age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States are excluded. In 2013, less than 1% of the unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United States and are excluded from analyses of NCVS data.
Estimates in NCVS reports typically use data from the 1993 to 2013 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Since the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.
OK, that methodology computes to me, at least. The sample size is 160K, which is more than significant for the US population.
-
I asked Tito's mom and she said
"GRRBRBDAGLLLL"
Then I pulled my cock out of her mouth.
-
OK, that methodology computes to me, at least. The sample size is 160K, which is more than significant for the US population.
National Crime Victimization Survey
The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) NCVS, which began in 1973, provides a detailed picture of crime incidents, victims, and trends. After a substantial period of research, the BJS completed an intensive methodological redesign of the survey in 1993. The BJS conducted the redesign to improve the questions used to uncover crime, update the survey methods, and broaden the scope of crimes measured. The redesigned survey collects detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. It does not measure homicide or commercial crimes (such as burglaries of stores).
Two times a year, U.S. Bureau of the Census personnel interview household members in a nationally representative sample of approximately 43,000 households (about 76,000 people). Approximately 150,000 interviews of persons age 12 or older are conducted annually. Households stay in the sample for 3 years. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis.
The NCVS collects information on crimes suffered by individuals and households, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. It estimates the proportion of each crime type reported to law enforcement, and it summarizes the reasons that victims give for reporting or not reporting.
The survey provides information about victims (age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, income, and educational level), offenders (sex, race, approximate age, and victim-offender relationship), and the crimes (time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences). Questions also cover the experiences of victims with the criminal justice system, self-protective measures used by victims, and possible substance abuse by offenders. Supplements are added periodically to the survey to obtain detailed information on topics like school crime.
https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/appendices/appendix_04.html
-
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245#Methodology
Survey coverage
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about themselves (e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced a victimization. Information is collected for each victimization incident, about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim-offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not reported, and experiences with the criminal justice system.
The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of members who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are considered household members when the sampled address is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of seven interviews.
Generally, all first interviews are conducted in-person. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings, such as correctional or hospital facilities, and the homeless.
Nonresponse and weighting adjustments
In 2013, 90,630 households and 160,040 persons age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States are excluded. In 2013, less than 1% of the unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United States and are excluded from analyses of NCVS data.
Estimates in NCVS reports typically use data from the 1993 to 2013 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Since the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.
The NCVS data files include both person and household weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the population represented by each person in the sample. Household weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household population represented by each household in the sample. After proper adjustment, both household and person weights are also typically used to form the denominator in calculations of crime rates.
Victimization weights used in analysis of NCVS data account for the number of persons present during an incident and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (or series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed information on only the most recent incident in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012.
Standard error computations
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with the NCVS, caution must be taken when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses, and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
In order to generate standard errors around numbers and estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters are used to generate standard errors for each point estimate (such as counts, percentages, and rates) in reports using NCVS data.
BJS conducts tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers and percentages in reports using NCVS data are statistically significant once sampling error is taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text of reports are tested for significance. The Student’s t-statistic is the primary test procedure, which tests the difference between two sample estimates.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in reports to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. The following example illustrates how standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals:
According to the NCVS, in 2013, the violent victimization rate among persons age 12 or older was 23.2 per 1,000 persons (see table 1 in Criminal Victimization, 2013, NCJ 247648, September 2014). Using the GVFs, it was determined that the estimated victimization rate estimate has a standard error of 1.6 (see appendix table 2 in Criminal Victimization, 2013, NCJ 247648, September 2014). A confidence interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two- tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around the 23.2 estimate from 2013 is 23.2 ± (1.6 X 1.96) or (20.0 to 26.3). In others words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2013, 95% of the time the violent victimization rate would fall between 20.0 and 26.3 per 1,000 persons.
BJS also calculates a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases where the CV is greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate is noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) restoration and redesign
In 1972, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) instituted the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), formerly known as the National Crime Survey (NCS), to produce national estimates of the levels and characteristics of criminal victimization in the United States, including crime not reported to police departments. Along with the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, the NCVS constitutes a key component of our nation’s system to measure the extent and nature of crime in the United States.
In 2008, BJS sponsored an expert panel study carried out by the National Research Council of the National Academies to review the survey’s methodology and provide guidelines for options to redesign the NCVS. The panel’s recommendations are contained in Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey (National Research Council, 2008). In response to these recommendations, BJS initiated a two-prong approach to redesign and restore the NCVS with the ultimate goals to improve the survey’s methodology, contain costs, assure sustainability, increase value to national and local stakeholders, and better meet the challenges of measuring the extent, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization.
To restore the quality of the NCVS data, BJS and the U.S. Census Bureau implemented two large-scale interventions. First, the number of sample cases was increased to improve the stability and precision of national and subgroup estimates of victimization. Second, in late 2011, refresher training and performance monitoring of field representatives (FR) were initiated to improve the quality and costs associated with data collection. The effects of these interventions have been monitored in an effort to maintain consistent year-to-year comparisons. BJS continues to evaluate the impact of each on-going intervention on criminal victimization estimates and other estimates of data quality, including response rates and measures of interview quality.
Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006
Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012, and Criminal Victimization, 2012, NCJ 243389, October 2013 are available on the BJS website.
-
You said they don't use weighing adjustments.
Where did I say this?
-
Where did I say this?
In several of the categories, there are less than 10 sample cases. You made the claim that you could make an accurate assessment on race based on these sample cases. Within the very study, it says that you cannot make an accurate assessment because the sample sizes are too small. You have stated over and over that the BOJ created some kin d of weight that corrects for this. That's simply not true. You are clinging to that point because you feel like it makes a point about race and crime, when no logical point can be inferred from such a small sample size. The authors of the study admit that.
Please peddle some more idiotic mumbo jumbo to stay the course.
-
OK, that methodology computes to me, at least. The sample size is 160K, which is more than significant for the US population.
But that's precisely why there's a standard error CV, isn't it? The survey is broken up into multiple sections. If you get to a section with so few sample cases, those numbers still aren't reliable.
-
The weight they created DOESNT correct for this. They don't even claim it does. There is a high probability of error.
-
The weight they created DOESNT correct for this. They don't even claim it does. There is a high probability of error.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included.
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on the rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey, NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012.
-
Once again, your bullshit train hurdles forward. "Series Incidents" means multiple incidents perpetrated on the same victim/s.
That paragraph has nothing to do with case studies of less than 10. It just means that if someone is beaten up by the same person or something like that, the report doesn't count it more than 10 times.
::)
-
Once again, your bullshit train hurdles forward. "Series Incidents" means multiple incidents perpetrated on the same victim/s.
That paragraph has nothing to do with case studies of less than 10. It just means that if someone is beaten up by the same person or something like that, the report doesn't count it more than 10 times.
::)
Why do they use that sample size? You claim you don't dispute the data so what is it that you have a problem with?
-
Why do they use that sample size? You claim you don't dispute the data so what is it that you have a problem with?
They don't use a sample size. That paragraph says nothing about sample size. it says that it limits "series incidents" in the total crime count to a number of 10. That has nothing to do with certain categories being unreliable if they have fewer than 10 examples. These two points aren't under the same section. They are completely unrelated.
-
With a too small sample you will get biased estimations of your mean and standard deviation and the smaller the sample size, the larger the effect an outlier will have.
Some useful information for the topic at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_of_random_variables
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_variation
-
They don't use a sample size. That paragraph says nothing about sample size. it says that it limits "series incidents" in the total crime count to a number of 10. That has nothing to do with certain categories being unreliable if they have fewer than 10 examples. These two points aren't under the same section. They are completely unrelated.
Apparently there are problems with the stats. They might underestimate crime
The nation needs accurate measurements of victimization rates to allocate resources to fight crime, support victims' needs, and shape policies and programs to deter these crimes in the future. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), is currently the major tool available to measure these rates and victim characteristics. As discussed in the preceding chapters, there is controversy as to whether the incidence of rape and sexual assault is being underestimated on the NCVS, in part because other sources of data have shown higher levels of victimization than estimated through the NCVS. These differences reflect, in part, the clear definitional differences and methodological differences among the sources, which in turn affect the estimated victimization levels.
The panel could not ascertain which data source provided the most accurate estimates of rape and sexual assault. Even though the other sources (excluding the Uniform Crime Reports [UCR]) showed larger estimates than did the NCVS (or National Crime Survey), the panel is not concluding that “bigger is better.” With that said, the higher rates estimated by the several reviewed surveys lend support to concerns about a potential underestimate by the NCVS. These concerns, as well as the original charge to the panel (see Box 1-1 in Chapter 1), led to the panel's close analysis of the NCVS. It is important to note that the panel's work focused on the NCVS and did not examine as closely the other sources of data on rape and sexual assault described in Chapter 5. By addressing only the NCVS in this and the next three chapters, the panel is not implying that there are more issues with the NCVS than with the others.1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
-
Apparently there are problems with the stats. They might underestimate crime
Whuhh?? So, the weights don't make it 100% accurate. But there are 10!! ::)
-
Al Doggity I think you may be incorrectly conflating the warning about N=10 on the frontpage with this specific method that also uses the number 10 as the limit to how many reports can come from an individual.
If I'm understanding it correctly, if someone reported 1-10 incidents in the study period they would all get counted, if someone reported 11 or more, only the first 10 are counted. So if anything it is under-estimating crime, and is not related to the statistical problems we pointed out earlier with N≤10 for these types of things in any obvious way that I can see. It is just a way of avoiding having the results be rendered invalid or not generalizable, due to a small number of outliers that may report hundreds of incidents.
I've lost track of what's going on and who is fucking who and whose mother so I'll contribute to this thread in another fashion:
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/2l91fmx.jpg)
-
Al Doggity I think you may be incorrectly conflating the warning about N=10 on the frontpage with this specific method that also uses the number 10 as the limit to how many reports can come from an individual.
If I'm understanding it correctly, if someone reported 1-10 incidents in the study period they would all get counted, if someone reported 11 or more, only the first 10 are counted. So if anything it is under-estimating crime, and is not related to the statistical problems we pointed out earlier with N≤10 for these types of things in any obvious way that I can see. It is just a way of avoiding having the results be rendered invalid or not generalizable, due to a small number of outliers that may report hundreds of incidents.
I've lost track of what's going on and who is fucking who and whose mother so I'll contribute to this thread in another fashion:
(http://oi61.tinypic.com/2l91fmx.jpg)
You are correct in everything, with the exception that Archer77 is the one who is trying to mix up the two reports. I actually corrected him a few posts up. And the only reason he posted that blurb is because it is a wall of text he expected no one to read.
Also, your other contributions are greatly appreciated. ;D
-
With a too small sample you will get biased estimations of your mean and standard deviation and the smaller the sample size, the larger the effect an outlier will have.
No shit, really?
-
You are correct in everything, with the exception that Archer77 is the one who is trying to mix up the two reports. I actually corrected him a few posts up. And the only reason he posted that blurb is because it is a wall of text he expected no one to read.
Also, your other contributions are greatly appreciated. ;D
I concede, there are problems with the sample size. I'm not too proud to see your point. If anything it appears to underestimate crime. However, the DOJ considers the numbers to accurate enough to use.
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly
This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.
Victimizations Reported as Series Victimizations in the NCVS, by Type of Crime, 1993-1999 and 2000-2009, as Percentage of All Victimizations Reported.
had difficulty recalling exactly how many times violent victimizations occurred within a 6-month reference period. The observed patterns of response clustering indicated that many victims provided estimates of the number of times the victimizations occurred rather than counting directly from memory.
Thus, when an individual is victimized so many times during a 6-month period that he or she has difficulty recalling individual incidents, that respondent may also have difficulty providing an accurate count of the number of incidents that happened and whether the incidents occurred within the reference period. Lynch, Berbaum, and Planty (2002, p. 23) further speculated about another potential measurement error problem that may exist in this category:
Series incidents in a large part may be an artifact of Census Bureau procedures. More specifically, multiple events may be treated as a series event when the respondent can clearly recall and report on these incidents, simply because it is easier for the interviewer to complete a single incident form, as opposed to multiple incident form
From a statistical point of view, series victimization procedures create outlier problems for estimation. In general, outlier problems can be caused by large estimation weights, large outlying data values, or moderate values. Estimation weights for the NCVS are fairly large. When estimating rape and sexual assault (a low-incidence item in the NCVS data), the data values are generally zero (no rape or sexual assault reported). When rape or sexual assault is reported as a series, the data value can be quite high.4 Under the new procedures the value is truncated at “10” for individuals reporting more than 10 incidents in a single series.
Even with the truncation, these outliers (representing only 6 percent of the positive responses to rape and sexual assault) tied to the NCVS weights have a substantial impact on the estimates and the standard errors of those estimates, with both increasing fairly substantially. Fortunately, the statistical literature is fairly well developed in the areas of detecting and adjusting for outliers, and some of the developed techniques (adjusting the weights, the data value, or both) may be appropriate for use in measuring rape and sexual assault
Until 2011, NCVS deleted these outliers for the purpose of estimates reported in Criminal Victimization (although they counted a series as a single victimization, rather than deleting, in some special reports). The effect was to heavily suppress the larger numbers that were reported by ignoring these multiple victimizations. This process added to a potential underestimation of victimizations (Planty and Strom, 2007).
Beginning in 2011, BJS stopped deleting these outliers. Instead, reported series victimizations are now directly included in the estimates with no additional adjustment unless more than 10 victimizations are reported in one series. Reported values greater than 10 are truncated to the value of 10. BJS has made the change retroactively back to 1993 in its online NCVS database.5
The effect of changing the method for handling these outliers in the estimates of rape and sexual assault is huge (see Figure 7-1 and Table 7-5). Across the past 18 years, this change in methodology increased the estimates of incidents of rape and sexual assault by an average of 52 percent per year, and it increased the estimates of incidence rate by 55 percent. The estimates (number of victimizations) also fluctuated more from year to year. The change ranged from a low of zero percentage change in 2007 (there were no series victimizations reported) to a high of 143 percentage change in 2009
-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/table/tab_7_5/?report=objectonly
This explains why they use a sample size of ten. It's so serial incidents don't inflate the total number of rapes and sexual assaults. I may have made this point before.
You are using the wrong term here. This is not a sample size.
-
You are using the wrong term here. This is not a sample size.
you're absolutely right but its the term we've been using
-
you're absolutely right but its the term we've been using
No, it isn't the term we've been using. You're posting walls of text that are about something else entirely in the hope that no one will actually read what you've posted. The walls of text get longer and longer and have less and less to do with what was actually being discussed.
But my point is made. You're incapable of having an honest debate. You're not mentally equipped and you lie like a shameless rug.
-
you're absolutely right but its the term we've been using
Who is we? I don't see anyone else misusing it.
Saying "the sample size is too small" gives a false impression that something is wrong with this approach methodologically. It seems very sensible to me. I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.
-
Who is we? I don't see anyone else misusing it.
Saying "the sample size is too small" gives a false impression that something is wrong with this approach methodologically. It seems very sensible to me. I agree with Al D, it seems to me you are trying to prop up a false argument by deliberately using the wrong term.
It was Al's arguement that the sample size was too small. That's been his argument from the beginning.
Right. So, basically, a sample size of 10 is not going to give you a reliable national statistic. Is that what you're saying?
He's used the term sample size multiple times in this very thread. I posted the methodology they used.
In several of the categories, there are less than 10 sample cases. You made the claim that you could make an accurate assessment on race based on these sample cases. Within the very study, it says that you cannot make an accurate assessment because the sample sizes are too small. You have stated over and over that the BOJ created some kin d of weight that corrects for this. That's simply not true. You are clinging to that point because you feel like it makes a point about race and crime, when no logical point can be inferred from such a small sample size. The authors of the study admit that.
Please peddle some more idiotic mumbo jumbo to stay the course.
Yes: (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
That is exactly what that means. That wall of text you just posted is almost wholly irrelevant to the discussion. This one line is all you need to know. The sample size is too small to make accurate assessments. contained right there in the report.
-
It was Al's arguement that the sample size was too small.
He's used the term sample size multiple times in this very thread.
There are times when "sample size" is an appropriate term to use. I have used it correctly. You are conflating the "series incidents" methodology with "weighting" methodology. Neither has anything to do with the other.
And what you're doing is obvious and completely pathetic. But, yeah, you're data-driven and intellectually honest. ::)
-
There are times when "sample size" is an appropriate term to use. I have used it correctly. You are conflating the "series incidents" methodology with "weighting" methodology. Neither has anything to do with the other.
And what you're doing is obvious and completely pathetic. But, yeah, you're data-driven and intellectually honest. ::)
I'm not confusing series incidents with weighing methodology. The link I posted discusses this. Series incidents were effecting total counts. This was my original argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
-
I'm not confusing series incidents with weighing methodology. The link I posted discusses this. Series incidents were effecting total counts. This was my original argument.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK202273/
No, it wasn't. You just desparately glommed onto this blurb because it contained the number 10. It has nothing to do with the margin of error, which is pretty straightforward.
-
No, it wasn't. You just desparately glommed onto this blurb because it contained the number 10. It has nothing to do with the margin of error, which is pretty straightforward.
Yes it does. After changing the methodology they've gone back as far as 95 to correct errors. .
-
There are series victimization and national victimization. They use a set number in order to prevent serial victimizations stats from skewing the data for national victimizations stats
Beginning with Criminal Victimizations, 2011, BJS began including series victimizations directly in its estimates. The NCVS uses the victim's report of the number of similar victimizations, with a maximum of 10, and collects (and applies to each victimization) detailed information only for the most recent victimization. These new procedures are being applied to all types of victimizations, including rape and sexual assault (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012a, p. 13):
BJS now includes series victimizations using the victim's estimate of the number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6 months, capping the number of victimizations within each series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates and account for the experience of persons with repeat victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist in the number of times these victimizations occurred. This bulletin is the first to include series victimizations throughout the entire report, and all victimizations estimates in this report reflect this new count strategy.
A technical report provides findings on the extent and nature of series victimization (Lauritsen et al., 2012, p. iii):
Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimizations; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included. The impact of including series victimizations may vary across years and crime types, in part reflecting the relative rarity of the offense type under consideration.
This is why it has such a co-efficient.
Given the findings from this research, BJS will enumerate
series victimizations using the victim’s estimates of the
number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6
months, capping the number of victimizations within each
series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series
victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates
and account for the experiences of persons with repeated
victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist
in the number of times these victimizations occurred.
-
Yes it does. After changing the methodology they've gone back as far as 95 to correct errors. .
And none of this has anything to do with your original point that a statistic involving a sample size of 10 or less gives you a good idea of a national trend. If anything, it does the opposite. ::)
-
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
There really is no question about what this means.
-
If the purpose is to provide a count of victimizations in order
to calculate a national rate of victimization, the precision of
the victim’s response is very important. This is especially true
when the event being measured is statistically rare. Under
this condition, the inclusion of a small number of high-rate
victims can result in national rates that vary widely. The
challenges that victims of repeated crimes have in recounting
the number of times an event occurred are not unique to
surveys designed to estimate victimization. Instead, they are
common to all survey research in which respondents are
asked to recount events that they experience frequently (e.g.,
Sudman et al, 1996; Groves et al, 2004).
Prior research findings and our analyses suggest using a
capping method when counting series victimizations for
national victimization rates to limit the influence of higher
and less consistent reports. Using a capping strategy made it
necessary to determine at what level the cap should be set.
Other countries that provide victimization rates (rather than
prevalence rates) used a cap of five for victimizations similar
in nature (using a 1-year recall period). A comparable cap of
five for the NCVS would be illogical, as series victimizations
must include at least six victimizations according to the
definitions used in the NCVS. Although the modal response
category by series victims is six victimizations for all NCVS
years, a cap of six would be too low, as it would not capture
the relative frequency of victimizations for the majority of
series victims.
The median response count for series victims of violence was
10 victimizations per the 6-month recall period across nearly
all NCVS years. The decision was made to use a value of 10
as the cap on series victimizations because it was found to
be stable over time and included the count provided directly
from the victim for the majority of series victimization cases.
The cap of 10 was also selected because the consistency of
responses began to decline at that point, and the magnitude of
the discrepancies began to increase.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
This new series counting decision balances the concerns
of wanting victimization rates to include the experiences
of high-rate victims while understanding that multiple
sources of error exist in estimates of the number of
victimizations that occurred. These sources of error include
less consistency when the counts are higher, a greater
magnitude in the discrepancies when the counts are higher,
and possible overestimation of some victimization counts in
instances where victims report four or five victimizations,
but interviewers then use the series protocol requiring a
minimum of six victimizations to reduce respondent burden.
Beginning with NCVS data for 2010, the annual BJS report
Criminal Victimization included estimates of violent
victimization that took series incidents into account by using a
cap of 10 victimizations per series report (figure 9). (For more
information, see Criminal Victimization, 2010, NCJ 234408,
September 2011.) To assess the impact of the new series
counting, the rates of violent victimization were compared
without the inclusion of series victimizations to the rates that
included series victimizations from 1993 to 2009.
-
None of that is related to the topic.
-
(Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Now when the NCVS national victimization rates are estimated
to include series victimizations, the experiences of all series
victims will be taken into consideration. When series victims
state that the number of times the victimization occurred is
10 or fewer, those experiences will be counted at their stated
value using the victim’s response provided when first asked to
report this count. Series victims who provide responses that
are greater than 10 will have their experiences counted as 10
victimizations so that the overall impact on the victimization
rates of the higher and less consistent estimates will be reduced.
Series victims who are unable to provide a count of the
number of times the victimization occurred, but who report
that it occurred at least six times, will be counted as having
experienced 6 victimizations (the modal response category).
-
Yes, but they are referring to the incorporation of serial victimization and its effect on national victimization rates.
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
-
Okay. So, right from your link:
In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations.
So , statistically insignificant. Time to swerve again. ::)
I don't need to swerve. The reason the co-eff is high is because they capped serial victimization at 10 in order to prevent outliers to skew national statistics.
The degree to which the inclusion of series victimizations
would affect crime-specific rates depended on the relative
rarity and the proportion of series victimizations for that
type of crime. Annual estimates of rape and sexual assault
varied more from year to year depending on the inclusion
of series victimizations, because this type of crime occurred
less often than nonsexual assaults. Rape and sexual assaults
contained a higher proportion of series victimizations
compared to robbery and aggravated assault. When
annual estimates were sensitive to the inclusion of series
victimizations, percentage change estimates across selected
years were more likely to vary.
Prior research by Planty and Strom (2007) found that
the degree to which the inclusion of series victimizations
affected the annual victimization rates varied by crime type.
Using data from the NCVS from 1993 to 2000, they found
that estimates of rape and sexual assault were most sensitive
to the inclusion of series victimizations, as were simple
assaults. Our research suggested similar conclusions to those
reported by Planty and Strom
-
The point is made, Archer77. Your opinions are garbage. You don't even believe in them enough to be honest with yourself. You're sitting there pretending not to understand basic English because that's easier for you than engaging with the world realistically.
Whatever, man. If I'm bored, I'll engage you again and the results will be the same. You will embarrass yourself twisting and turning trying to come up with some stupid angle to salvage your dignity instead of educating yourself.
You're not a man of integrity and you certainly aren't a data- driven thinker. You're just a troll.
-
The point is made Archer77. Your opinions are garbage. You don't even believe in them enough to be honest with yourself. Your sitting there pretending not to understand basic English because you can't stand the idea that crime stats aren't the American Holocaust you want them to be.
Whatever, man. If I'm bored, I'll engage you again and the results will be the same. You will embarrass yourself twisting and turning trying to come up with some stupid angle to salvage your dignity instead of educating yourself.
Your not a man of integrity and you certainly aren't a data- driven thinker. You're just a troll.
The methodology changed because serial victimizations were having to great an effect on national statistics. The new method of limiting serial victimizations was intended to prevent outliers from skewing the results.
For rape and sexual assault, the rates excluding series
victimizations ranged from 0% to 48% lower than the rates
obtained when series victimizations were included (figure
10). In 1998, 2004, 2005, and 2007, the differences between
the two estimates were not statistically significant (p <
.05), primarily because victims reported very few series
victimizations of these types. In each of these years, the
total unweighted number of series rape and sexual assault
victimizations reported was three or fewer. The inclusion of
series victimizations in the estimates generally did not affect
the long-term trends in rape and sexual assault, although
the estimate of the magnitude of change over time varied
depending on the years selected for comparison.
While both trends showed a similar pattern of decline from
1993 to 2009, more annual variation occurred in the rates
that included series victimizations. From 1993 to 2009, rape
and sexual assault rates declined 80% when excluding series
victimizations and declined 72% when including series
victimizations (table 10). When estimating the change from
2001 to 2009, the rates declined 54% when excluding series
victimizations and 42% when including series victimizations.
The most recent annual change in this series (i.e., from
2008 to 2009) was estimated to be a 39% decline excluding
series victimizations and a 13% decline including series
victimizations. Since BJS reports included tests for whether
each percentage change estimate was statistically significant,
the same general conclusion would have been made about
the changes in rape and sexual assault from 2008 to 2009
regardless of whether series victimizations were included. In
this instance, neither change estimate was significant.
-
Series Victimization
Series victimization is a category used when a respondent reports that six or more separate but similar victimizations have occurred during the 6-month reference period, but is unable to recall enough details of each incident to distinguish them from one another. Until recently, the NCVS estimates published in Criminal Victimization excluded series victimizations (or included them as a single victimization in certain special reports), which clearly undercounted the total number of all types of victimizations, including rape and sexual assault.
Beginning with Criminal Victimizations, 2011, BJS began including series victimizations directly in its estimates. The NCVS uses the victim's report of the number of similar victimizations, with a maximum of 10, and collects (and applies to each victimization) detailed information only for the most recent victimization. These new procedures are being applied to all types of victimizations, including rape and sexual assault (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012a, p. 13):
BJS now includes series victimizations using the victim's estimate of the number of times the victimizations occurred over the past 6 months, capping the number of victimizations within each series at a maximum of 10. This strategy for counting series victimizations balances the desire to estimate national rates and account for the experience of persons with repeat victimizations while noting that some estimation errors exist in the number of times these victimizations occurred. This bulletin is the first to include series victimizations throughout the entire report, and all victimizations estimates in this report reflect this new count strategy.
A technical report provides findings on the extent and nature of series victimization (Lauritsen et al., 2012, p. iii):
Including series victimizations in national rates results in rather large increases in the level of violent victimizations; however, trends in violence are generally similar regardless of whether series victimizations are included. The impact of including series victimizations may vary across years and crime types, in part reflecting the relative rarity of the offense type under consideration.
BJS has revised estimates back to 1993 in its online database, accessible through the NCVS victimization analysis tool.16 The effects of this change on the estimates of rape and sexual assault are so substantial that the panel decided to include both estimates—one based on the new method of including up to 10 victimizations in series, and one in which series victimizations are excluded—in our comparisons in Chapters 6 and 7. The revised estimation process means that a very small number of reports have a major impact on the estimates. (This issue is further discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 10.)
-
The panel did not have the time and resources to examine specific alternative outlier adjustment procedures. Thus we address the issue in more general terms. It is clear that a subpopulation is at risk for being repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted over a relatively short period of time. This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.
CONCLUSION 7-2 Records identified as series victimizations create an outlier problem in the estimation process for the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current method for handling series victimization, although an improvement over the method used until 2011, allows these relatively rare reports to have a large impact on the national estimates of rape and sexual assault and creates large year-to-year volatility.
The new method for dealing with serial victimizations is limiting them to ten. The high co-eff warning is to inform the the reader of the inclusion of the limited number of serial victimizations.
BJS has revised estimates back to 1993 in its online database, accessible through the NCVS victimization analysis tool.16 The effects of this change on the estimates of rape and sexual assault are so substantial that the panel decided to include both estimates—one based on the new method of including up to 10 victimizations in series, and one in which series victimizations are excluded—in our comparisons in Chapters 6 and 7. The revised estimation process means that a very small number of reports have a major impact on the estimates. (This issue is further discussed in Chapters 6, 7, and 10.)
-
The panel did not have the time and resources to examine specific alternative outlier adjustment procedures. Thus we address the issue in more general terms. It is clear that a subpopulation is at risk for being repeatedly raped and sexually assaulted over a relatively short period of time.
I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc. When in that very same line they are speaking in general terms and referring to a subpopulation. They are not stating ABSOLUTES, which you demanded from me.
Epic hypocrite.
-
I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc.
Epic hypocrite.
You gave me two personal experiences that do not prove a systemic problem exists. What I posted was from the study. If you want to continue on private message we can.
-
I love how youre citing that part bolded in black and red and yet, when debating with me over PM, you're asking for ABSOLUTES, i.e., do systems affect EVERY family in every situation and are ALL systems the same, etc. When in that very same line they are speaking in general terms and referring to a subpopulation. They are not stating ABSOLUTES, which you demanded from me.
Epic hypocrite.
It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.
This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.
All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.
haha, back peddling. I also told you that there are hundreds, if not thousands of peer reviewed journal articles overing the topic we were discussing. Do you want me to email you every fucking article I own or discuss every single case I ever came across. Shit, a quick google search will probably turn up millions of hits.
Even if I gave you 10 experiences and provided you with 50 journal articles, you still demanded ABSOLUTES, which is impossible to supply. There are NO absolutes. I can never provide you with enough evidence to provide an absolute, of which you demanded.
You never provided any peer reviewed journal articles. The only thing you provided were two personal experiences. You don't have to send me every article you own but more than zero would be good. I asked you how your personal experiences-all the evidence you provided-supports the idea of a systemic problem. As I mentioned to you in PM's I'm open to anything you have to say.
-
It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.
This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.
All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.
Again, the fact that they are studying a subpopulation of something, just supports my stance that I do not need absolutes to support my position (It happens EVERYWHERE).
-
It's not bolded in black. Here is the rest.
This is a statistically rare subpopulation within the population of all victims of rape and sexual assault, which already has a low incidence rate. The panel believes that this subpopulation needs to be better understood, and its victimizations should be accounted for in BJS statistics. However, the panel believes that a more sophisticated approach than currently used may be needed to properly represent series victimizations in the estimates of incidence rates for rape and sexual assault.
All they are saying is that they don't have a better method for understanding the subpopulation.
You never provided any peer reviewed journal articles. The only thing you provided were two personal experiences. You don't have to send me every article you own but more than zero would be good. I asked you how your personal experiences-all the evidence you provided-supports the idea of a systemic problem. As I mentioned to you in PM's I'm open to anything you have to say.
I did not provide you with any articles becuase you were asking for a bullshit absolute. So why supply you with anything when youre just going to say something dumb like, "BUT IT DOESNT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE." ::) ::) ::) Great logic.
As stated, the universe (for the most part) does not work in absolutes. It works in probabilities.
-
Again, the fact that they are studying a subpopulation of something, just supports my stance that I do not need absolutes to support my position (It happens EVERYWHERE).
Though, to be honest, when i presented the argument about obesity and heart disease you did concede and say, "Fair enough."
They are saying they don't have enough information to make an accurate assessment of the subpopulation and a better methodology is needed. In essence, they aren't going to make an assessment and thus no judgement.
I was saying fair enough to your personal experience, as in, I will take it into consideration.
I did not provide you with any articles becuase you were asking for a bullshit absolute. So why supply you with anything when youre just going to say something dumb like, "BUT IT DOESNT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE." ::) ::) ::) Great logic.
As stated, the universe (for the most part) does not work in absolutes. It works in probabilities.
Just admit that you were wrong. ADmit that you were asking for absolutes, when you know as well as I do that in research there are no absolutes, and just because something is not absolute, it doesn't make it not true.
I wasn't asking for absolutes. I was asking for more than two examples. I was asking how your personal experiences indicating a systemic problem. How you were able to gauge a systemic problem existed across multiple institutions. I asked whether the problem you were dealing with was human incompetence or if was systemic and intentional.
-
Just admit that you were wrong. Admit that you were asking for absolutes, when you know as well as I do that in research there are no absolutes, and just because something is not absolute, it doesn't make it not true. Because I have the PM where you wanted me to apply it to EVERY and ALL systems and instutions, and you know that is not the way research works.
You were arguing the problem was systemic. That's about as absolute as one can get. I asked you how your personal experience translate into there being a systemic problem.
-
They are saying they don't have enough information to make an accurate assessment of the subpopulation and a better methodology is needed. In essence, they aren't going to make an assessment and thus no judgement.
I was saying fair enough to your personal experience, as in, I will take it into consideration.
I wasn't asking for absolutes. I was asking for more than two examples. I was asking how your personal experiences indicating a systemic problem. How you were able to gauge a systemic problem existed across multiple institutions. I asked whether the problem you were dealing with was human incompetence or if was systemic and intentional.
You're a good fucking liar.
This is what you said:
How are they applicable to the all institutions? How are your examples applicable to the DCF everywhere else?
Asking how they are applicable to ALL institutions is asking for an absolute. Asking how they apply to DCF everywhere else (meaning all DCFS in other states) is asking for an absolute.
Wanting me to relate and apply something to ALL institutions is dumb and asking for an absolute. And of course not every institution works or is affected the same way, similarly just like not all obese people have heart problems.
-
You were arguing the problem was systemic. That's about as absolute as one can get. I asked you how your personal experience translate into there being a systemic problem.
Yes, the problem is systemic. No where did I say it applied to ALL systems and can be applicable to ALL systems. You did. I stated simply that the problem is systemic. Nowhere once did I state its the case in ALL systems.
Also, I stated there was an interaction between people, environment and systems, thus making it obvious that its not just a system problem. That its a mixture of all three variables.
Not only are you a liar, but youre putting words into my mouth. Point to where I said it was applicable to ALL systems.
-
You're a good fucking liar.
This is what you said:
How are they applicable to the all institutions? How are your examples applicable to the DCF everywhere else?
Asking how they are applicable to ALL institutions is asking for an absolute. Asking how they apply to DCF everywhere else (meaning all DCFS in other states) is asking for an absolute.
Wanting me to relate and apply something to ALL institutions is dumb and asking for an absolute. And of course not every institution works or is affected the same way, similarly just like not all obese people have heart problems.
Yes, that is what I said and have been saying in this thread. You said the problem was systemic and institutional. I was asking how two examples you gave prove your assertion. How they prove there is a systemic problem at the DCFS I asked you how that proves there is a greater systemic problem in other institutions. How is it systemic if the problem exist only at the DCFS you dealt with?
-
To get a polling that will be accurate to plus/minus 2 percent for the United States, you need to survey 2500 people.
-
To get a polling that will be accurate to plus/minus 2 percent for the United States, you need to survey 2500 people.
They poll more than 10 people.
-
Yes, that is what I said and have been saying in this thread. You said the problem was systemic and institutional. I was asking how two examples you gave prove your assertion. How they prove there is a systemic problem at the DCFS other than the one you dealt with personally. I asked you how that proofs there is a greater systemic problem in other institutions.
No, you dingbat. My god. You asked for an absolute (how it applied to ALL institutions). That's impossible to answer.
There is a difference in wording!!! Asking how there is a problem systemically in a particular situation is A LOT different than asking how it applies to ALL institutions. You can't give an absolute, just in the same way you cant say that obesity is going to lead to heart disease in every person.
Now if I provided you with more evidence that there is a systemic issue with DCF, that in no way means it applies to ALL DCF organizations in every single state. If a systemic problem in DCF exists in 18 states out of 50, that does not mean there is not a systemic issue with DCF. It indicates that there is enough evidence to suggest that that it may affect people in those state and its a variable to examine and to keep in mind even in those states where the problem does not currently exist (because those problems could always arise at any time).
As stated for the 100th fucking time, there is enough anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed journals and books that discuss this issue. If I have the time, I will send you some things.
-
No, you dingbat. My god.
There is a difference in wording!!! Asking how there is a problem systemically in a particular situation is A LOT different than asking how it applies to ALL institutions. You can't give an absolute, just in the same way you cant say that obesity is going to lead to heart disease in every person.
Now if I provided you with more evidence that there is a systemic issue with DCF, that in no way means it applies to ALL DCF organizations in every single state. If a systemic problem in DCF exists in 18 states out of 50, that does not mean there is not a systemic issue with DCF. It indicates that there is enough evidence to suggest that that it may affect people in those state and its a variable to examine.
As stated for the 100th fucking time, there is enough anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed journals and books that discuss this issue.
You can say there is evidence all you want but you didn't provide any. You provided two personal experiences that only apply to your immediate circumstances. If the problem exists only at the DCF you dealt with the problem can hardly be called systemic. It would be a local issue.
-
You can say there is evidence all you want but you didn't provide any. You provided two personal experiences that only apply to your immediate circumstances. If the problem exists only at the DCF you dealt with the problem can hardly be called systemic. It would be a local issue.
No, DCF is a system in-and-of-itself.
There are many different systems. The court is a system. The family is a system. DCF is a system. The school is a system.
If there is a problem with DCF I can say its a systemic issue, but its a systemic issue related to DCF.
Here, dingbat:
A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
DCF is a system of interacting components (workers) that form a whole (DCF). DCF IS A SYSTEM!!
A mother, brother and father and sister are interacting component to form an integrated whole (the family unit). Thus, the family is a system.
-
You claimed the problem was systemic and institutional before you even mentioned your personal experiences. What did you mean? What problem is systemic and institutional?
-
You claimed the problem was systemic and institutional before you even mentioned your personal experiences. What did you mean? What problem is systemic and institutional?
No, DCF is a system in-and-of-itself.
There are many different systems. The court is a system. The family is a system. DCF is a system. The school is a system.
If there is a problem with DCF I can say its a systemic issue, but its a systemic issue related to DCF.
Here, dingbat:
A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.
DCF is a system of interacting components (workers) that form a whole (DCF). DCF IS A SYSTEM!!
A mother, brother and father and sister are interacting component to form an integrated whole (the family unit). Thus, the family is a system.
"Family is the primary and, almost always, the most powerful system to which humans belong." From a webpage
So, yes, these problems are systemic, but different ecological levels have different systems.
-
You claimed the problem was systemic and institutional before you even mentioned your personal experiences. What did you mean? What problem is systemic and institutional?
No, DCF is a system in-and-of-itself.
There are many different systems. The court is a system. The family is a system. DCF is a system. The school is a system.
If there is a problem with DCF I can say its a systemic issue, but its a systemic issue related to DCF.
No, you dingbat. My god. You asked for an absolute (how it applied to ALL institutions). That's impossible to answer.
There is a difference in wording!!! Asking how there is a problem systemically in a particular situation is A LOT different than asking how it applies to ALL institutions. You can't give an absolute, just in the same way you cant say that obesity is going to lead to heart disease in every person.
Now if I provided you with more evidence that there is a systemic issue with DCF, that in no way means it applies to ALL DCF organizations in every single state. If a systemic problem in DCF exists in 18 states out of 50, that does not mean there is not a systemic issue with DCF. It indicates that there is enough evidence to suggest that that it may affect people in those state and its a variable to examine and to keep in mind even in those states where the problem does not currently exist (because those problems could always arise at any time).
As stated for the 100th fucking time, there is enough anecdotal evidence and peer reviewed journals and books that discuss this issue. If I have the time, I will send you some things.
But you only provided evidence that a problem existed at your branch of the DCF and that's far from systemic.
-
sys·tem·ic
səˈstemik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
"the disease is localized rather than systemic"
(of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar substance) entering the plant via the roots or shoots and passing through the tissues.
From the examples you provided the problem seems limited to a particular part, your branch of DCF. Is that systemic?
-
But you only provided evidence that a problem existed at your branch of the DCF and that's far from systemic.
The way I am defining the term systems, it is a systemic issue. The problem may be the way we are defining what a "system" is. We seem to be defining "system" differently.
Even if its a branch of DCF in vermont, its still a systemic issue, because DCF is a system in-and-of-itself.
Different systems exists at different ecological levels.
-
sys·tem·ic
səˈstemik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
"the disease is localized rather than systemic"
(of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar substance) entering the plant via the roots or shoots and passing through the tissues.
From the examples you provided the problem seems limited to a particular part, your branch of DCF. Is that systemic?
Yes, its systemic because its dealing with that specific branch of DCF, say in vermont and that DCF is a system in-and-of-itself, albeit a small system. Therefore, its a systemic issue because the problem is related to a small system (DCF).
-
sys·tem·ic
səˈstemik/Submit
adjective
1.
of or relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
"the disease is localized rather than systemic"
(of an insecticide, fungicide, or similar substance) entering the plant via the roots or shoots and passing through the tissues.
From the examples you provided the problem seems limited to a particular part, your branch of DCF. Is that systemic?
For the problems at DCF to be systemic they can't be limited to a particular location. There has to be something about the DCF itself, the way its organized or its policy that is consistent throughout the system.
-
For the problems at DCF to be systemic they can't be limited to a particular location. There has to be something about the DCF itself, the way its organized or its policy that is consistent throughout the system.
Yes, there were many problems with the DCF which was consistent throughout the whole system and affecting its worker. The problem was wide spread enough to where it led to a strike. When all your workers go on strike, yes, id say its a systemic issue at that point.
-
For the problems at DCF to be systemic they can't be limited to a particular location. There has to be something about the DCF itself, the way its organized or its policy that is consistent throughout the system.
And youre wrong. A branch of DCF is a system in and of itself and can have problems within that small branch of DCF. For a system problem to exist it does not have to exist in EVERY DCF branch. There could be DCF issues in specific branches due to poor administration from the top of that branch.
-
Yes, there were many problems with the DCF which was consistent throughout the whole system and affecting its worker. The problem was wide spread enough to where it led to a strike. When all your workers go on strike, yes, id say its a systemic issue at that point.
Why didn't you say that? I would have liked to know that. If there are problems that are consistent through the various branches of DCF you would have a legitimate systemic problem. Are the problems you experienced consistent with the same problems experienced at other DCF branches? Do the problems stem from policy or organizational issues?
-
Why didn't you say that? I would have liked to know that. If there are problems that are consistent through the various branches of DCF you would have a legitimate systemic problem. Are the problems you experienced consistent with the same problems experienced at other DCF branches? Do the problems stem from policy or organizational issues?
Id argue that just because there is not an issue at EVERY DCF branch, it does not mean its not a systemic issue.
As stated again, DIFFERENT ECOLOGICAL LAYERS HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS!! Some systems are small. some are very big. It's a systemic issue within that branch. Dude, the family unit made up of 4 people is a SYSTEM!! A clique of 10 friends is a system.
Id still argue that its a systemic issue with that branch of DCF, which is affecting that subpopulation of people who reside in that area. IT does not have to be widespread throughout DCF for it be systemic.
-
And youre wrong. A branch of DCF is a system in and of itself and can have problems within that small branch of DCF. For a system problem to exist it does not have to exist in EVERY DCF branch. There could be DCF issues in specific branches due to poor administration from the top of that branch.
For the problem to be systemic to DCF it does have to be consistent. Otherwise, the problem is administrative and has nothing to do directly with DCF. It's a local hiring issue.
-
Id argue that just because there is not an issue at EVERY DCF branch, it does not mean its not a systemic issue.
As stated again, DIFFERENT ECOLOGICAL LAYERS HAVE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS!! Some systems are small. some are very big. It's a systemic issue within that branch. Dude, the family unit made up of 4 people is a SYSTEM!! A clique of 10 friends is a system.
You could argue that problem is systemic to your particular branch but isn't systemic to DCF. Is the problem DCF or the people working at your branch? If it's the people the problem isn't with DCF
Not if the administrators of a particular branch of DCF are getting their orders from other higher-ups within DCF, which is often the case. They have to answer somewhere. Its a trickle down effect.
Are they following DCF policy or the direction of the individual above them. If it's a policy issue then it indicates the possibility of a system problem, that is, if the policy results in the same problem on a consistent basis.
-
You could argue that problem is systemic to your particular branch but isn't systemic to DCF. Is the problem DCF or the people working at your branch? If it's the people the problem isn't with DCF
Its both.
The administrators of a particular branch of DCF are getting their orders from other higher-ups within DCF, which is often the case. They have to answer somewhere. Its a trickle down effect. And broad policies and procedures are implemented across all DCF branches, which often cause disruption. Sometimes disruption comes from within the branch, but a lot of times people within the branch are reacting to larger policies and procedures being implemented from bosses who do not even work at their branch.
And obviously each system responds differently.
-
Its both.
The administrators of a particular branch of DCF are getting their orders from other higher-ups within DCF, which is often the case. They have to answer somewhere. Its a trickle down effect. And broad policies and procedures are implemented across all DCF branches, which often cause disruption. Sometimes disruption comes from within the branch, but a lot of times people within the branch are reacting to larger policies and procedures being implemented from bosses who do not even work at their branch.
And obviously each system responds differently.
In that case, the solution to the problem is a policy change and not hiring other people. I would consider that systemic.
-
THE CUT AND PASTE IS STRONG IN THIS THREAD
-
THE CUT AND PASTE IS STRONG IN THIS THREAD
Well, I am glad to say I wrote out all of my thoughts. Though, they were not that impressive to begin with. ;D ;D