28 Three Statistical Paradoxes in the Interpretation of Group Differences: Illustrated with Medical School Admission and Licensing Data

Handbook of Statistics

Volumn 26, Issue , 2006, Pages 893-918

  Wainer, Howard ^a   Brown, Lisa M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649383641     PISSN: 01697161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7161(06)26028-0     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Author. Sex, Race, Ethnicity and Performance on the GRE General Test: 2003-2004 (2003), Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ
2. Baker S.G., and Kramer B.S. Good for women, good for men, bad for people: Simpson's paradox and the importance of sex-specific analysis in observational studies. Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine 10 (2001) 867-872
3. Baumol W.J., Blackman S.A.B., and Wolff E.N. Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View (1989), MIT Press, Cambridge and London
4. Bowen W.G., and Bok D. The Shape of the River (1998), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
5. Freedle R.O. Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review 73 1 (2003) 1-43
6. Friedman M. Do old fallacies ever die?. Journal of Economic Literature 30 (1992) 2129-2132
7. Galton F. Natural Inheritance (1889), Macmillan, London
8. Holland P.W., and Rubin D.B. On Lord's paradox. In: Wainer H., and Messick S. (Eds). Principals of Modern Psychological Measurement (1983), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ 3-25
9. Hotelling H. Review of The triumph of mediocrity in business by Secrist H. Journal of the American Statistical Association 28 (1933) 463-465
10. Jeon J.W., Chung H.Y., and Bae J.S. Chances of Simpson's paradox. Journal of the Korean Statistical Society 16 (1987) 117-125
11. Johnson, E.G., Zwick, R.J. (1988). The NAEP Technical Report, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ
12. Kelley T.L. The Interpretation of Educational Measurements (1927), World Book, New York
13. King W.I. Review of The triumph of mediocrity in business by Secrist H. Journal of Political Economy 42 (1934) 398-400
14. Linn R. Ability testing: Individual differences and differential prediction. In: Wigdor A.K., and Garner W.R. (Eds). Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences and Controversies, Part II. Report of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Ability Testing (1982), National Academy Press, Washington, DC
15. Lord F.M. A paradox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin 68 (1967) 304-305
16. Mathews, J. (2003). The bias question. The Atlantic Monthly, 130-140
17. Mills F.C. Statistical Methods. Applied to Economics and Business (1924), Henry Holt, New York
18. Ramist L., Lewis C., and McCamley-Jenkins L. Student Group Differences in Predicting College Grades: Sex, Language and Ethnic Group (1994), The College Board, New York
19. Reilly R.R. A note on minority group bias studies. Psychological Bulletin 80 (1973) 130-133
20. Rubin D.B. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (1974) 688-701
21. Secrist H. The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business (1933), Bureau of Business Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
22. Sharpe W.F. Investments. 3rd ed (1985), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
23. Simpson E.H. The interpretation of interacting contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B 13 (1951) 238-241
24. Stigler S. Regression toward the mean, historically considered. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 6 (1997) 103-114
25. Wainer H. Adjusting for differential base-rates: Lord's paradox again. Psychological Bulletin 109 (1991) 147-151
26. Wainer H. Kelley's paradox. Chance 13 1 (2000) 47-48
27. Wainer H., and Brown L. Two statistical paradoxes in the interpretation of group differences: Illustrated with medical school admission and licensing data. The American Statistician 58 (2004) 117-123
28. Williamson J.G. Productivity and American leadership: A review article. Journal of Economic Literature 29 1 (1991) 51-68
29. Yule G.U. Notes on the theory of association of attributes of statistics. Biometrika 2 (1903) 121-134
30. Zaslavsky A. On Kelly's paradox. Chance 13 3 (2000) 3