<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ReCal error log entry #1: invariant values (updated 5/12/09)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dfreelon.org/2008/10/24/recal-error-log-entry-1-invariant-values/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dfreelon.org/2008/10/24/recal-error-log-entry-1-invariant-values/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:59:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ostkirchen Gabriele; Tolic Ivana</title>
		<link>http://dfreelon.org/2008/10/24/recal-error-log-entry-1-invariant-values/#comment-629</link>
		<dc:creator>Ostkirchen Gabriele; Tolic Ivana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dfreelon.org/?p=27#comment-629</guid>
		<description>this time Eva Wiegemann is calculating the reliabilites
of her data (study EXPI_8), since the reliabilties
show differences, we will analyse the mistakes  and
produce a mistake-protocol
Thanks again for being able to use your programme.
Best greetings
Eva Wiegemann
Gaby Ostkirchen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>this time Eva Wiegemann is calculating the reliabilites
of her data (study EXPI_8), since the reliabilties
show differences, we will analyse the mistakes  and
produce a mistake-protocol
Thanks again for being able to use your programme.
Best greetings
Eva Wiegemann
Gaby Ostkirchen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dfreelon</title>
		<link>http://dfreelon.org/2008/10/24/recal-error-log-entry-1-invariant-values/#comment-566</link>
		<dc:creator>dfreelon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 17:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dfreelon.org/?p=27#comment-566</guid>
		<description>Brian,

Thank you for your comment. First let me assure you that ReCal did function as intended, reporting invariant values exceptions only for those variables for which the two conditions you mention obtain. Because the invariant values exception is calculated on a per-variable basis, it is not intended to refer to the situation in which all the cases in a multi-variable file are set to the same variable value.

I believe the confusion here stems from differing uses of the term &quot;case&quot;—you seem to be using it as a synonym for &quot;variable&quot; (i.e. column pair), whereas I (prior to editing for clarity) used it in two conflicting senses: yours as well as as a synonym for &quot;unit of analysis&quot; (i.e. corresponding value pair in the same row). ReCal&#039;s output also uses this latter sense; the &quot;N cases&quot; is always the total number of rows in the file, since all variables in a multi-variable file must contain the same number of cases.

I can see how this would be confusing, so I have amended this post to refer to &quot;units of analysis&quot; and &quot;variables,&quot; removing all uses of the term &quot;case.&quot; I hope this clarifies my meaning.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brian,</p>
<p>Thank you for your comment. First let me assure you that ReCal did function as intended, reporting invariant values exceptions only for those variables for which the two conditions you mention obtain. Because the invariant values exception is calculated on a per-variable basis, it is not intended to refer to the situation in which all the cases in a multi-variable file are set to the same variable value.</p>
<p>I believe the confusion here stems from differing uses of the term &#8220;case&#8221;—you seem to be using it as a synonym for &#8220;variable&#8221; (i.e. column pair), whereas I (prior to editing for clarity) used it in two conflicting senses: yours as well as as a synonym for &#8220;unit of analysis&#8221; (i.e. corresponding value pair in the same row). ReCal&#8217;s output also uses this latter sense; the &#8220;N cases&#8221; is always the total number of rows in the file, since all variables in a multi-variable file must contain the same number of cases.</p>
<p>I can see how this would be confusing, so I have amended this post to refer to &#8220;units of analysis&#8221; and &#8220;variables,&#8221; removing all uses of the term &#8220;case.&#8221; I hope this clarifies my meaning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://dfreelon.org/2008/10/24/recal-error-log-entry-1-invariant-values/#comment-565</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dfreelon.org/?p=27#comment-565</guid>
		<description>Dear Deen, I&#039;m getting this error when I&#039;m running Recal on my coding results, but I&#039;m not sure if the conditions are exactly as you pointed out above:

1) all of your coders have attained 100% agreement and 
2) they have all selected the same variable value for every case.

In my results &quot;undefined&quot; is displayed when indeed the coders have attained 100% agreement but not when they selected the same variables for &quot;every case&quot;. It only shows undefined for the cases where the coders have 100% agreement and selected the same variable value.

To clarify, I have coding results for 2 coders which evaluated 16 cases on the presence of 54 variables (0 = absent, 1 = present). And only the cases where there is a 100% agreement the undefined error is shown. Not when all the cases have a 100% agreement.

Maybe this is exactly what you meant but your example and the corresponding text seemed to indicate that the error should only occur when there&#039;s 100&amp; agreement in all the cases.

Yours truly,

Brian</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Deen, I&#8217;m getting this error when I&#8217;m running Recal on my coding results, but I&#8217;m not sure if the conditions are exactly as you pointed out above:</p>
<p>1) all of your coders have attained 100% agreement and 
2) they have all selected the same variable value for every case.</p>
<p>In my results &#8220;undefined&#8221; is displayed when indeed the coders have attained 100% agreement but not when they selected the same variables for &#8220;every case&#8221;. It only shows undefined for the cases where the coders have 100% agreement and selected the same variable value.</p>
<p>To clarify, I have coding results for 2 coders which evaluated 16 cases on the presence of 54 variables (0 = absent, 1 = present). And only the cases where there is a 100% agreement the undefined error is shown. Not when all the cases have a 100% agreement.</p>
<p>Maybe this is exactly what you meant but your example and the corresponding text seemed to indicate that the error should only occur when there&#8217;s 100&amp; agreement in all the cases.</p>
<p>Yours truly,</p>
<p>Brian</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
