Re: runs test once more

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg57306] Re: runs test once more*From*: "Ray Koopman" <koopman at sfu.ca>*Date*: Tue, 24 May 2005 05:12:43 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <d6k8ia$q2$1@smc.vnet.net><200505210641.CAA16452@smc.vnet.net> <d6rtn8$46q$1@smc.vnet.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Csukas Attila wrote: > I have checked the runs test, and it seems I have missed one step as > a preparation. Now I have arranged all the observed and predicted > values to the third column (third in the brackets) to the second > column I inserted 1 for the observed values, 2 for the predicted > values by the model (second in the brackets), and the first column > contains the id for each case. For each id I would like to know > whether there is a systematic bias between observed and predicted > values or not. Basically, I am expecting nonsignificant runs test > result, because that would prove me, that the model fitted well. > I hope could make clear my question now and would appreciate any > help, hint and comment on the matter. I still fail to see the relevance of runs. Try plotting observed against predicted for each ID. The fit looks pretty good to me, with no obvious systematic bias. If you need some sort of formal statistical test, do a t-test on the mean difference for each ID, much as Clifford Martin suggested.

**References**:**Re: runs test for evaluation of model fit***From:*"Ray Koopman" <koopman@sfu.ca>