Statistics in a Nutshell

Errata for Statistics in a Nutshell

Submit your own errata for this product.


The errata list is a list of errors and their corrections that were found after the product was released. If the error was corrected in a later version or reprint the date of the correction will be displayed in the column titled "Date Corrected".

The following errata were submitted by our customers and approved as valid errors by the author or editor.

Color Key: Serious Technical Mistake Minor Technical Mistake Language or formatting error Typo Question Note Update



Version Location Description Submitted By Date Submitted Date Corrected
Printed
Page Index
United States

Omission of "error" and/or "residual error" from index. It is discussed as a topic in one specific occurrence on p.245.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add "error of prediction" and "residual error" to the index, with reference to page 245.

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014 
Printed
Page index
United States

Durbin-Watson is not in the index. I looked up autocorrelation but the D-W is not associated with it in the text. It is mentioned on pg. 203

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add "Durbin-Watson statistic" to the index, with a reference to page 203.

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014 
ePub
Page 13
3rd paragraph

My page number is relative to my font size, but in the "The Focus of This Book" you'll find: "Several things are necessary to be able in the process of thinking with numbers."

Note from the Author or Editor:
please change sentence to read "Several things are necessary to be able to think with numbers."

Alfredo Delgado  Nov 30, 2012 
PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online
Page 54
Last two lines of "Independent and Dependent Variables"

In the closing sentences of the last paragraph of the section "Independent and Dependent Variables" the words indepenent and dependent have been described exactly the other way - at least if it should be consistent with the rest of the paragraphs idea.

Note from the Author or Editor:
on p. 54, the end of the last sentence of the paragraph beginning "Some researchers believe... " should read "thus, we will use "dependent variable" to identify the variables that reflect the outcome of a study and "independent variable" to mean the variables believed to influence the outcome."

Jakob Klein  Nov 17, 2012 
Printed
Page 69
United States

In the first sentence of the 5th paragraph it reads... "If we are evaluating the probability that the coin is fair.....give us strong evidence that it is fair. Should read ...."gives us strong evidence that it is unfair."

Note from the Author or Editor:
second paragraph fro the bottom, first sentence should end "that it is unfair"

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014 
Printed, PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online
Page 91
First numbered list, item 3

Inconsistent with the item 1 (correct ranking from smallest to largest) in the instructions to compute the percentiles, the item 3 reads: "the (j+1)th largest measurement" should be used, while correctly it should be the (j+1)th smallest measurement, or more unambiguous, "the measurement ranked (j+1)th".

Note from the Author or Editor:
Affirmed; also notice plural for "observations": for item 3 in the first list on p. 91 (printed edition), the sentence should read: If (nk)/100 is not an integer, the kth percentile of the observations is measurement ranked (j + 1)th, where j is the largest integer less than (nk)/100.

kleinjakob  May 26, 2013 
Printed, PDF, ePub, Safari Books Online
Page 92
2nd paragraph below the heading "The Variance and Standard Deviation"

The formula for the deviation is wrongly typeset, the index of x should be simply i and the subtraction should be on the first level (x_i - ) instead of (x_{i - }).

Note from the Author or Editor:
affirmed--in the formula in parentheses at the end of the first line, beginning "The deviation from the mean...., the symbol mu should not be subscript

kleinjakob  May 26, 2013 
Printed
Page 127
United States

Fig 5-2 The chi square equation contains this product: i th row x j th row It should have: i th row x j th column

Note from the Author or Editor:
the numerator of the formula at the bottom of the page should read: ith row total times jth column total

Brian L Joseph  Sep 21, 2013 
PDF
Page 141
Figure 5-19

The definition of r_{pb} in Figure 5-19 (point-biserial correlation coefficient) shows the numerator of the fraction as \bar{X}_{1}-\bar{X}_{0}\sqrt{p(1-p)} i.e. it indicates that only the X0 term is multiplied by sqrt{p(1-p)}. The example in Figure 5_20 indicates that the whole (X1 - X0) term which should be multiplied by sqrt{p(1-p)}. The definition in 5_19 could be amended to put brackets around the whole (X_1 - X_0) term.

Note from the Author or Editor:
For Figure 5-19 and F-20, the X-bar-sub1 minute X-bar-sub0 term should be in parentheses

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014 
PDF
Page 248
Figure 10-3

The label of the x-axis on Figure 10-3 appears to be incorrect/misleading. The label is "log_gni" (indicating that it is after a logarithmic transformation of GNI), but the graph title, and the explanatory text on page 247, indicate that Figure 10-3 is based on the raw GNI (i.e. before the logarithmic transformation), and that it is only Figure 10-4 which uses the logarithmic transformation. Consider relabelling the x-axis of Figure 10-3 as "gni" instead of "log_gni".

Note from the Author or Editor:
for Figure 10-3 on page 248 of the PDF, the x-axis should be labeled as GNI not log_gni

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014 
Printed
Page 255
United States

"The Durbin-Watson statistic for this model is 0.195 very close to the null value of 2". Either the test statistic calculated is not the actual value which was calculated or the statement is incorrect based on the value of the stated test statistic.

Note from the Author or Editor:
In the first full paragraph, the value of the Durbin-Watson statistic should be 1.95, not 0.195.

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014 
Printed
Page 255
United States

Omission: "We will evaluate the assumption of homoscedasticity....". The definition is not explained where it is referenced. It can not be found in the glossary or the index. The prior edition has the term in the index. It can be found on pg. 199

Note from the Author or Editor:
Third paragraph from the bottom, sentence beginning "We will evaluate the assumption..." add "(homoscedasticity means the variance is similar across the range of the data)" Add "homoscedasticity" to the index, referencing p. 255

Brian Joseph  Mar 23, 2014 
PDF
Page 256
Table 10-6 and preceding paragraph.

The values in this table are not consistent, and the text on interpreting Tolerance and VIF appears to reverse the terms. The text states that VIF = 1/tolerance, but the values appear to be approximately a factor of 10 out. (For example: in row "Log_gni", tolerance is 0.50 and VIF is 20.04, but 1/0.50 = 2.0, not 20.04.) Consider recalculating and correcting these. The text above the table states "tolerance should not be greater than 10 or VIF lower than 0.10". This is not consistent with other sources, or with this text's interpretation of the values in the table: the table shows low tolerances and high VIF, but the text states that there is a problem with the data. Consider replacing "tolerance should not be greater than 10 or VIF lower than 0.10" with "VIF should not be greater than 10 or tolerance lower than 0.10".

Note from the Author or Editor:
page 256, first paragraph, third sentence, second clause should be amended to read "one popular rules is that tolerance should not be less than 0.10 or VIF greater than 10." In Table 10-6, the tolerance values should be: 0.05, 0.02, and 0.08

Anonymous  Apr 05, 2014 
PDF
Page 308
5th paragraph

The word "Because" is misspelled as "Bacause".

Note from the Author or Editor:
The sentence should read "Because there are both...

Duncan Aitken  Dec 06, 2012 
Printed
Page 474
United States

3 + 5 + 8 -3 + -5 = -8 should be 3 + 5 = 8, -3 + -5 = -8 -3 + 5 = 2 3 + -5= -2 should be -3 + 5 = 2, 3 + -5 = -2

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 474, 4 lines from the bottom, indented, should read: 3 + 5 + 8 and -3 + -5 = -8 (add word "and" between 8 and -3) p. 474, final line, indented, should read: -3 + 5 = 2 and 3 + -5 = 2 (add word "and" between 2 and 3)

Glen Leatherman  Oct 06, 2013 
PDF
Page 479
4th bullet point

"b^{log_b x} where x > 0" should read "b^{log_b x} = x where x > 0".

Note from the Author or Editor:
The sentence should read: "b^{log_b x} = x where x > 0"

DuncanA  Apr 24, 2013 
Printed
Page 479
4th bullet

b to the log base b of x where x > 0 should be b to the log base b of x = x where x > 0 Add '= x'

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 479 4th bullet from the top: add "= 0" after "b to the log base b of x "

Glen Leatherman  Oct 06, 2013 
PDF
Page 543
Table F-1, The Greek Alphabet

The lowercase pi is incorrect. The text shows a lower case delta (δ) instead of a lower case pi (π).

Note from the Author or Editor:
On p. 543, the lowercase letter for pi is incorrect. It should be π

Anonymous  Oct 15, 2013 
ePub
Page 1276
Last equation in Figure A-15

In a series of examples of dividing out common factors to simplify fractions, (4x^3y^2)/(2xy^3) is said to reduce to 2xy^-1 instead of 2x^2y^-1.

Note from the Author or Editor:
the second equation in Figure A-15 (p. 487 in the pdf) should solve to 2x^2y^-1 in other words, it should be x-squared rather than x in the solution

Alfredo Delgado  Dec 03, 2012 
ePub
Page 9922
3rd paragraph

3 + 5 + 8 − 3 + − 5 = − 8 should read 3+5=8, -3+-5=-8

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 474 in PDF, equations in 4th from last line, and last line, need commas to clarify, and 4th from last line subsitute an = for the 3rd +. They should read: 3 + 5 = 8, -3 + -5 = 8 3 + 5 = 2, 3 + -5 = 2

David Graham  Apr 04, 2014 
ePub
Page 10167
Figure A-13

m = 6-0/0-2 = 6/-2 = 3 should be m=6-0/0-2 = 6/-2 = -3

Note from the Author or Editor:
in PDF p. 485, Figure A-11, answer should be -3 not 3

David Graham  Apr 04, 2014 
ePub
Page 10215
Figure A-18

4(x*3)(y**2) / 2(x)(y**3) = 2(x**2)(y**-1)

Note from the Author or Editor:
in PDF, p. 487 Figure A-15, solution to second equation should be: 2x**2y**-1 In other words, x-squared not x

David Graham  Apr 04, 2014