SHOULD WE ESTIMATE THE PROBABILITY OF CORRECT SELECTION?

Various authors, given k location parameters, have considered lower confidence bounds on (standardized) dserences between the largest and each of the other k - 1 parameters. They have then used these bounds to put lower confidence bounds on the probability of correct selection (PCS) in the same experiment (as was used for finding the lower bounds on differences). It is pointed out that this is an inappropriate inference procedure. Moreover, if the PCS refers to some later experiment it is shown that if a non-trivial confidence bound is possible then it is already possible to conclude, with greater confidence, that correct selection has occurred in the first experiment. The short answer to the question in the title is therefore ‘No’, but this should be qualified in the case of a Bayesian analysis.     

PARTICIPATION OF MEXICAN AMERICAN FEMALE ADOLESCENTS IN A LONGITUDINAL PANEL SURVEY

The sources of systematic sample attrition are examined fora community-based panel survey of 1,023 Mexican American andnon-Hispanic white female adolescents, 874 (85.4%) of whom werereinterviewed after two years. There were few differences betweenMexican Americans born in the United States and non-Hispanicwhites, but Mexican Americans born in Mexico were distinctivelydifferent. The characteristics of the original interview shapethe respondent's concurrent attitude toward repeating the experiencebut do not affect directly subsequent behavior. The resultsdemonstrate that the validity of panel data may be problematiceven when indicators of the survey content do not appear tobe associated directly with loss to follow-up. Attrition exerteda greater impact upon the external than internal validity ofthe panel data.