Re: PDF File of CMAJ paper "categorisation not a bad thing"

Posted by Dale Glaser on Jun 15, 2011; 7:48pm
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/PDF-File-of-CMAJ-paper-categorisation-not-a-bad-thing-tp4491777p4492462.html

...........there was a similar article in Psychological Methods that actually showed, in some circumstances, when dichotomization worked as well as continuous variables...see the following: DeCoster, J., Iselin, A. R., & Gallucci, M.  (2009).  A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization.  Psychological Methods, 14, 349-366. Dale Glaser, Ph.D. Principal--Glaser Consulting Lecturer/Adjunct Faculty--SDSU/USD/Alliant Past-President, San Diego Chapter of American Statistical Association 3115 4th Avenue San Diego, CA 92103 phone: [phone] fax: [phone] email: [hidden email] website: www.glaserconsult.com --- On Wed, 6/15/11, Martin Holt <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Martin Holt <[hidden email]> Subject: PDF File of CMAJ paper "categorisation not a bad thing" To: [hidden email] Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 9:06 AM Hi,   A couple of days ago I posted a comment that a case could be made for first performing categorisation before doing just the continuous analysis (as is always said to be required), as the data might have an unusual shape (eg BMI is parabolic).   I've been asked to supply a copy of the CMAJ paper that makes this case. So I've scanned it in as a PDF document, and if anyone else wants a copy please contact me offlist on m861holt@... and I'll duly send one.   Best Wishes,   Martin Holt Medical Statistician