# Errata for Statistics in a Nutshell

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 12
3rd/4th paragraph.

When discussing the Kappa formula the 3rd paragraph says: "Kappa has a range of 0-1: ..." Right below this paragraph it is discussed how kappa values can be classified. The first item is for values below 0 (< 0). The truth is that kappa has not the range of 0-1, but -1 to 1, as the number of cases in agreement do not need to be higher than the number of expected agreements.

Anonymous  Nov 26, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 28
First sentence of the "permutations" section

First of all, permutations ARE all the possible WAYS... and the second, set has no order so permutations are made OF a set, not IN a set.

Note from the Author or Editor:
first sentence should read "permutations are all the possible ways.. second correction has already been made

Anonymous  Oct 27, 2011
Printed
Page 31
Very bottom

The expression at the bottom of the page calculates 0.2 + 0.1 - 0.05 = 0.15 when it should read 0.2 + 0.1 - 0.05 = 0.25

Anonymous  Aug 05, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 33
4th paragraph

Beginning in the middle of the 2nd line of the 4th paragraph the text reads: "we know that the false positive rate is 1 - sensitivity" but then uses the values 1 - 0.99. The value 0.99 is shown below the 2nd paragraph on the same page to be the specificity and not the sensitivity.

Note from the Author or Editor:
line should read "the false positive rate is 1 - specificity" not "1-sensitivity"

Anonymous  Aug 05, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 33
4th paragraph

Beginning in the middle of the 2nd line of the 4th paragraph the text reads: "we know that the false positive rate is 1 - sensitivity" but then uses the values 1 - 0.99. The value 0.99 is shown below the 2nd paragraph on the same page to be the specificity and not the sensitivity.

Note from the Author or Editor:
should read "the false positive rate is 1-specificity..."

Anonymous    Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 34
3rd sentence

should it be 'then fewer of the positives would be true positives'?

Note from the Author or Editor:
the phrase (third line of text) should read "fewer of the positives would be true positives, and more would be false positives"

kate  Feb 09, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
PDF
Page 35
figure 2-13

the denominator calculation is wrong (0.01)(0.99) is 0.0099 not 0.00099

Note from the Author or Editor:
The denominator of the second fraction should be: 0.0095 + 0.0099

Anonymous  Nov 16, 2012
Safari Books Online
49
last sentence of first paragraph

The last sentence of the first paragraph is: "sometimes it is as simple as confirming that no ID number appears more than once, while sometimes it requires searching for records that have the same values on all or more variables." I think it should read instead: "the same values on ONE or more varaibles."

Note from the Author or Editor:
The sentence should read "...while sometimes is requires searching for records that have the same values on several or all variables."

Anonymous  Dec 26, 2009  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 55
the Greek word 'mu'

When using the Greek word 'mu', the symbol for sigma is shown in parentheses immediately following. Please tell the authors 'Thanks for an excellent book on a very important and interesting topic'.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change the symbol to mu (not sigma)

Anonymous  Aug 08, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 55

The Greek word 'nu' is used before the symbol for sigma is immediately shown in parentheses.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change symbol to mu so it reads: "The mean of a population is denoted by the Greek letter mu (&#956;)..."

Anonymous  Aug 08, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 60
15th line from the top

s2 instead of s^2 error: and standard deviation are signified by s2 and s, respectively. correction: and standard deviation are signified by s^2 and s, respectively.

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 78
3rd line of first paragraph in Line Graphs chapter

error: requirement for a bar graph is that there can only be one y-value for each x-value, correction: requirement for a line graph is that there can only be one y-value for each x-value,

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 79
last line

error: bar chart, as in Figure 4-16. correction: line chart, as in figure 4-16.

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 80
2nd line in Fig 4-17 caption

error: decrease the visual impact of the trend correction: inflate the visual impact of the trend

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 80
5th paragraph

There is a reference to the image 5-16 that is, in fact, 4-16.

ambs  Dec 14, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 81
first line in fig 4-18 caption

error: Obesity amog U.S. adults, 1990-2002 (CDC), using a large range to inflate correction: Obesity amog U.S. adults, 1990-2002 (CDC), using a large range to decrease

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 92
1st paragraph

You say that use of a pseudorandom number generator could introduce a source of bias into random sampling, even when seeded with a timestamp. Whilst this is undoubtedly true, at least when not seeded, what significance does this have to statistical analysis? Speaking as a programmer, generally we only worry about the non-randomness of pseudorandom number generators when we're worrying about active attacks (e.g. in cryptography) -- not data! Is there something I'm missing here?

Note from the Author or Editor:
Please add the following for clarification at the end of the first paragraph on p. 92. After the sentence beginning "Fortunately, there are techniques..." add "In addition, the fact of pseudorandom numbers not being truly random is not a concern in most applications."

Adam Gleave  Aug 14, 2010
Printed
Page 127
Figure 7.1

The mean of the last normal distribution should be -2 instead of 2

Note from the Author or Editor:
correct: this line of legend for Figure 7.1 should be "mu = -2, sigma = 0.71"

Armin R. Mikler  Feb 17, 2011
Printed
Page 127
fig 7-1, last line in the label

assuming the graph as correct, the third distribution must have mu=-2 and not mu=2

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct: the third curve should be labeled "mu = -2, sigma = 0.71"

Anonymous  Oct 03, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 127
Figure 7-1

The µ-value for the third graph should be -2. Not 2.

Note from the Author or Editor:
In figure 7-1, p. 127, third line of legend: mu = -2 (not 2)

Anonymous  Nov 14, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 127
2nd paragraph, 1st sentence

I think word "variance" is meant to be "standard deviation" (as indicated by the use of the sigma symbol).

Note from the Author or Editor:
correct: the text should read "and standard deviation sigma (the Greek letter sigma)

Anonymous  May 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 129
2nd paragraph - starting with Similarly, a value of 10 from this population ....

Rather than "...a value of 10..." it should read ".... a value of 110...."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct: the sentence should read "Similarly, a value of 110 from this population..."

Armin R. Mikler  Feb 17, 2011  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 129
line 7

error: Similarly, a value of 10 from this population has a Z-score of 2 correction: Similarly, a value of 110 from this population has a Z-score of 2

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 129
Upper part

I think it would be better to explain the semantics of the Z-score not by a few examples (that, too), but also by saying that the Z-score is the distance of a data point from the mean, measured in standard deviations. To me, this is much clearer. Also, how would Z-scores of -2 and 1 compare?

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add the following sentence before the first sentence of p. 129: "A Z-score is the distance of a data point from the mean, expressed in standard deviations." The formula...

Anonymous  Nov 14, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 130
line 8 from the bottom

assuming that the formula on page 130 is correct: error: k is the number of trials: if we are flipping a coin 10 times, k = 10 correction: n is the number of trials: if we are flipping a coin 10 times, n = 10

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correction is correct: line should read "n is the number of trials: if we are flipping a coin 10 times, n = 10"

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 130
line 6 and 7 from the bottom

assuming that the formula on page 130 is correct: error: n is the number of successes: for instance, if we want to know the probability of 5 successes in 10 trials, n = 5 correction: k is the number of successes: for instance, if we want to know the probability of 5 successes in 10 trials, k = 5

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correction is correct: line should read "k is the number of successes: for instance, if we want to know the probability of 5 successes in 10 trials, k = 5."

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 130
The part below the fancy formulas

The explanation of k and n are swapped, here. This can be seen both from inserting the given values (10 trials, 5 successes) in the formula which would result in a strange factorial of (-5)!, which is ill-defined, AFAIK. And also from looking at page 131, where the values are correctly inserted into the formula, but where the same explanation error persists.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 130 4th paragraph from the bottom, change k to n so it reads: n is the number of trials: if we are flipping a coin 10 times, n = 10 3rd paragraph from the bottom: change n to k so it reads: k is the number of successes: .....k = 5 p. 131 3rd paragraph from the bottom: change k to n and n to k so it reads: n = 5 (because we are conducting five trials) k = 1 (because we are calculating the probability of exactly one success)

Anonymous  Nov 14, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 131
line 6 from the top

error: tion. In Figure 7-1, the distribution (p = 0.5, n = 40) qualifies for the normal correction: tion. In Figure 7-3, the distribution (p = 0.5, n = 40) qualifies for the normal

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correction is right: the sentence refers to Figure 7-3 not 7-1

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 131
line 4 from the bottom

assuming that the formula on page 130 is correct: error: n = 1 (because we are calculating the probability of exactly one success) correction: k = 1 (because we are calculating the probability of exactly one success)

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correction is right: line should read "k = 1"

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 131
line 5 from the bottom

assuming that the formula on page 130 is correct: error: k = 5 (because we are conducting five trials) correction: n = 5 (because we are conducting five trials)

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change "k = 5" to "n = 5" and change following line from "n = 1" to "k = 1"

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 132
The first formula

There is an open parenthesis missing in the formula.

Note from the Author or Editor:
The denominator of the second term should be: 1!(5-1)!

Anonymous  Nov 14, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 132
End of the second paragraph

You ask the reader to refer to "the later chapters relating to specific study designs" to learn about control variables. Since there are no such chapters, where in this book is this information? The index (which is really, really bad, by the way) only points to this very page 132, which is not very helpful. While we are at it: if this book is supposed to be a text book, the explanations are way to bad and the mistakes are too many. If this is supposed to be a reference book, the index just doesn't cut it.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Remove the clause beginning "and leave the discussion.." in the second paragraph under "Independent and Dependent Variables" sothe sentence ends with "..independent and dependent variables."

Anonymous  Apr 29, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 143
Box "Controversies"

The paper reference reads: "The world is round (p < 0.05), (American Psychologist, 49:2, ..." When in fact this is supposed to read "The earth is round (p < 0.05), (American Psychologist, 49:12, ..." (please note the difference between "world" and "earch" and "2" and 12"). Have a look: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237174%231994%23999509987%23343188%23FLP%23&_cdi=7174&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000047660&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=900438&md5=b45ffa8fcdea3885e2d02117a8dd1f68

Note from the Author or Editor:
text (5th and 6th lines of sidebar) should read "The Earth is Round (p < 0.05)" (American Psychologist, 49:12, December 1994, 997-1003).

Matthias Jordan  Oct 20, 2009  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 150
Second problem

The problem gives two "scores" of 190 and 175. I thought it would mean "Z-score", since "score" is not normally used in the book for values or data points. So 190 should be more extreme. But the solution gives the solution to the confusion: 190 was meant to be a data point.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add "raw scores" to problem 2 p. 150 as follows: "Which of the following raw scores has a more extreme Z-score...

Anonymous  Nov 14, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 152
paragraph 4

The authors introduce a formula that uses "degrees of freedom", but they only introduce this concept (as a footnote, because apparently it's not that important) 24 pages later on page 176. Maybe the footnote could be moved to the first occurance of the term.

Note from the Author or Editor:
move the footnote to first occurrence

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008
Printed
Page 152
Last paragraph before section "t-Tests"

"These relations would usually be expressed as t_{0.05,20}=1.725 and t_{0.05,20}=1.725, respectively." I'd bet, that should read "... and t_{0.01,20}=2.528, respectively." Otherwise the sentence doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous  Nov 16, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 153
Figure 8.1

Figure caption says "Comparison of the normal and t distribution for v=5, 15, and 25," but I see only one curve.(or am I just misinterpreting the graph?)

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Aug 14, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 153
fig 8-1 and its caption

the caption of fig 8-1 talks about a comparison of a normal distribution and three t distribution with v (by the way, what is v? the formula at page 152 does not have v, it has n) equal to 5, 15 but the figure shows only one distribution (which is not symmetrical since it has not its maximum at zero but a little below)

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 153
Figure 8-1

The graph is supposed to show a comparison of some distribution. Sadly, there is only one graph, with anything else to compare to.

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Nov 16, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 153
Figure 8-1

The chart is annotated "Comparison of the normal and t distribution for v=5, 15, and 25". The chart only has one curve, is it not missing two other curves for the other v's?

Note from the Author or Editor:
See previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Feb 13, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 153
Caption for Figure 8-1

I don't think the caption of Figure 8-1 matches the graph in the figure. The caption says it is a "comparison of the normal and t distribution for v=5, 15, and 25", yet there is only one function graphed in the figure.

Note from the Author or Editor:
1. Change caption to "Example t distribution" 2. Change text on p.152 to "Figure 8-1 shows an example t distribution"

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 155
Last paragraph

".. average accuracy a = 79%". "a" should be "a bar".

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 155
Last whole paragraph

In the text: "s² = 0.75". In the formula, 0.75 is inserted for s, so either s=0.75 or the formula should contain the square root of 0.75.

Note from the Author or Editor:
resolution provided in other erratum

xmjx  Jan 20, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 155
Last paragraph

The first line of the last paragraph reads "The recruiter finds that average accuracy a=79% and s^2=0.75..." It should read "and s=0.75", not s^2.

Anonymous  Feb 13, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 155
First sentence in second to bottom paragraph

The text says "The recruiter finds ... s^2 = 0.75 for the sample", but then the calculations below use 0.75 as standard deviation (s), not variance (s^2)

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change "s^2 = 0.75" to "s = 0.75"

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 156
last line

first formula in last line reads -- s/sqrt(v), it should be s/sqrt(n)

Note from the Author or Editor:
sentence should read "...and the mean's standard error is s/sqrt(n) = 0.411 / sqrt(10)...

Anonymous  Oct 31, 2011
Printed
Page 156
The first formula

The formula states that 24.0 = 2.4, which is a bit far-fetched.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Remove = from the second line of formula and cut third line to the right of the second line,ie, E y 24.0 - = --- n 10

Anonymous  Nov 16, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 156
Mean(y) equations

The second line of the equation ("= sum(y)/n") should be prefaced with "mean", otherwise the equation would read (carrying down from first line) "Sum(y) = sum(y)/n", which doesn't make any sense. Further, in the second set of equations below "The variance can then be computed as" the third line should read "59.12 - 24^2/10", not "2.4^2/10".

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change "2.4^2/10" to "59.12 - 24^2/10"

Anonymous  Feb 13, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 157
First calculation

CI_0.95 = ... = 2.0 +- ... Why 2.0? According to Wikipedia, this should be 2.4.

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 157
First calculation

CI_0.95 = y +- t... This should be "y bar", if you want to stick to your list of symbols on p. xix

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 157
first formula

The formula should have y bar instead of y. .025, 9 should be written as a subscript in parentheses t(0.025, 9). The foruma should use 2.4 instead of 2.0 the correct values are: 2.1060163<= mu <= 2.6939837

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Jan 08, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 157
First line

The confidence interval equation substitutes 2.0 for y. Where do you get 2.0 from? Did you mean to use 2.4, i.e. the sample mean? If so, the CI boundaries would increase by 0.4.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Substitute "2.4" for "2.0" in the second and third line of p157 and replace "1.708" with "2.108" and "2.292" with "2.692"

Anonymous  Feb 13, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 159
Last calculation

y_ballet should be "y bar"_ballet. The same for y_football.

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 159
First sentence

The first sentence reads "Thus, mu_ballet = 87.95, mu_football = 32.38...". Since these are sample means, shouldn't this read "Thus ybar_ballet = 87.95, ybar_football = 32.38..."?

Note from the Author or Editor:
the sentence should read "Thus, y-bar_ballet = 87.95, y-bar_football = 32.38..." (using the symbols)

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 160
Standard Error box

Please explain what greek letter 'nu' signifies. According to wikipedia this is degees of freedom but it has been used interchanegeably with 'n' (number of sample) when calculating the standard error here and on page 156 (bottom).

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 160 box labeled "Standard error" In the first two lines the Greek letter lower case nu appears in the square root sign twice; both times should be changed to n in the square root sign (as in the 2nd indented formula) p. 156 last line: same correction, the lower-case nu in the formula should be a lower-case n.

Chris Joyce  May 18, 2010
Printed
Page 160
Third sentence inside "Standard Error" box

The sentence currently reads: "Given that the standard deviation of a random variable x is given by: sigma_x = sigma/sqrt(n)". Shouldn't this read "Given that the standard error..."?

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change "Given that the standard deviation" to "Given that the standard error"

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 161
Equations below the table

The equations below the table are wrong. The calculation of variance is inconsistent with the equation given on page 61. The equation for t-test on page 162 is wrong: it should read y_d-bar, not y_d. And, the value used for s_d should be the standard deviation but the calculated variance number (25.73) is used.

Note from the Author or Editor:
On p. 161, add a sentence at the bottom (after the last formula): "Note: this is a "computational" formula arranged for ease when doing calculations by hand or with a calculator, but is the equivalent of the generation "definitional" formula for calculating a standard deviation given on p. 61." On p. 161, last line of table, change the control score to 75, the difference to 4, and the difference squared to 16. Just below table, sum of y-squared d should be 442 (not 462) THe formula at the bottom of p. 161, second line, numerator, change 462 to 442 and solution should be 23.51 (not 25.73) Top of page 162, formula, first line numerator should be y_d-bar (a bar should be over the d) numbers should be 4.8-0 / 23.51/sqrt(10) = 0.646

dave k  Aug 02, 2010
Printed
Page 161
Below the table

There is a calculation on y_d. What is this? Reverse-engineering of the numbers shows: we are calculating on the differences. This is nowhere explained anywhere in this section.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change table column headings: Difference (y sub d) (Difference)^2 y^2d

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 161
Below the table

The whole calculation below the table is botched. First of all, the table is wrong. In the last line, the difference between 79 and 65 is not 6. And if you sum up the differences, you get to 50, not to 48, which is given by the authors.

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 161
Data table and/or calculations at bottom of page

1. The numbers in the "difference" and "(difference)^2" columns are incorrect for the 10th entry. The "difference" should be 14 and the "(difference)^2" should be 196. 2. The summary statistics (sums of columns, mean, variance) are incorrect for the data given in the table above. If you fix problem #1 above by assuming that the experimental value for the 10th entry was supposed to be 71, not 79 (so that the difference from control is 6), these calculations still don't work (e.g. the mean of the difference column should be 50, not 48, etc.).

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change "79" to "69" in the first column of table on p161

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 162
2nd paragraph

The text states: "In this experiment, the null hypothesis is framed as a one-tailed problem, i.e., you are predicting that the treatment... will have a positive effect...". This is confusing to me because our null hypothesis is not that the treatment will have a positive effect -- page 161 states "The null hypothesis in this experiment is that mu_d = 0" -- in other words, the treatment has no effect. Given this, isn't the null hypothesis framed as a two-tailed problem? Also, you state at the bottom of the paragraph that if a two-tailed version of the null hypothesis is used, the degrees of freedom would need to be adjusted accordingly. How would this be done? The only discussion of degrees of freedom in the context of a t-test have stated that degrees of freedom equals n-1. N-1 would not change for a one or two-tailed test, would it?

Note from the Author or Editor:
On p162, Change "and adjust the degrees of freedom accordingly" to "and use the appropriate p value for a two-tailed test"

Anonymous  Apr 28, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 163
df equation

The equation for degrees of freedom contains an error in the denominator. s1 and s2 should both be squared inside the brackets.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change s1 -> s1^2 and s2 -> s2^2

Anonymous  Feb 26, 2009  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 166
First paragraph

µµ = 48 should probably be "µ = 48".

Note from the Author or Editor:
delete one of the "mu" symbols

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 166, 168
Answer to the first question

I would agree with the equation for the t test, but the wrong number is plugged in from what is given in the question. In every other book that I have read, variance = (std deviation)^2. The problem gives what appears to be a variance (ie. s^2 = 3.5), so the standard deviation is the 1.87 (= sqrt(3.5)). This then would change the result of the t score. A similar error occurs for the example on page 168 when computing the t score.

Note from the Author or Editor:
on p.166 change s2=3.5 to s=3.5 on p.168, change the worked solution to: = 1.5-0 ----- 0.88 <---- this is the only change --- sqrt(10) = 5.39

Anonymous  Jan 12, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 172
Figure 9-1

The axes on the graph are not quite in proportion; the distance from the 0 to 10 tick on the x axis is 5.5cm; the distance from the 0 to 10 tick on the y axis is 6cm. It doesn't affect the data, but visually, it just seems subtly "off."

Note from the Author or Editor:
new figure emailed to Marlowe

Anonymous  Aug 17, 2008
Printed
Page 172
2nd line

error: a = -2, which is positive, so the relationship is positive. correction: a = -2, which is negative, so the relationship is negative.

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 172
First paragraph

"a = -2, which is positive, so the relationship is positive". That's the problem when you copy-and-paste text from the paragraph before: -2 is negative, so the relationship is negative. Incidentally, my relationship with this book is beginning to become negative, too.

Note from the Author or Editor:
change "which is positive, so the relationship is positive" to "which is negative, so the relationship is negative"

Anonymous  Nov 25, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 173
Figure 9-3

Figure 9-3 is supposed to show variables described by the model: y = 2x + 0.5 but the figure appears to describe the model: y = x (that is, it is a duplicate of Figure 9-1.)

Note from the Author or Editor:
see previous errata for resolution

Anonymous  Aug 17, 2008
Printed
Page 173
fig 9-3

fig 9-3 is equal to fig 9-1 while it must be different

Note from the Author or Editor:
new fig 9-3 emailed to marlowe

Anonymous  Oct 04, 2008
Printed
Page 184
The z-test equation under "Testing Statistical Significance" in the 'Spearman Rank-Order Coefficient' section

The z-test equation appears without prior explanation with one term already set to 0. Could you please provide additional details. Note: a quick web search shows z-test equations that look very different from that used in the book (for example, see www.xycoon.com/z-test.htm). Please explain. Thanks !

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 184 2/3 of the way down, sentence beginning "In the case where the null hypothesis..." change to "Often the null hypothesis is that r_s = 0 (i.e., there is no correlation), in which case the following z-test can be carried out, where the numerator is the calculated coefficient minus this null value of 0:

Dave  Jan 21, 2010
Printed
Page 184
Table 9-8

The variable d (sixth column) is obviously the difference between ranks. However, there are several issues with its use here: 1. The variable is not identified as such after the defining equation on page 183. 2. The difference is ostensibly computed as [Column 5]-[Column 4], which is inconsistent with the method in which differences were computed earlier (see Tables 8-3 and 8-4). 3. The incorrect sign is used for the rank difference for Vehicle D (should be 1 instead of -1).

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 183 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence add "(d)" after "differences in ranks" so it readys "So, a lot of the computational effort involves working out the differences between ranks (d) for individual items..." p. 183 just below the formula, add "Note that because we are squaring d, it doesn't matter which rank is subtracted from which, as long as you are consistent." (before the sentence starting "Let's revisit the relationship..." p. 184 table 9.8 For vehicle D the value for d should be 1 (not -1)

Romann Weber  Jun 21, 2010
Printed
Page 184
First line below Table 9-8

The difference term previously notated as "d" is a lowercase delta inside the sum.

Note from the Author or Editor:
The formula should be sum of d-squared, not sum of delta-squared

Romann Weber  Jun 30, 2010  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 187
1st paragraph

I think definitions of A, B, C and D is wrong. f(0,0) and f(1,1)must be A and D (respectfully or not) and f(0,1) and f(1,0) must be B and C (respectfully or not). In the example the value of r Phi = -0.2. It shoul have been 0.2 (not with a negative sign). The data indicates a (not so strong) positive relationship. When you do the change I propose you would get the value of r phi = 0.2 (positive, not negative). Please let the authors know that I very much liked the organization of their book.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Let's change the way the table is labeled to match the formula (which is written in the standard way). THe calculations will not change but it might be less confusing. Top of p. 187, change the sentence "These are labeled..." to "The Phi correlation coefficient is calculated as: " then the formula, whose solution will be 0.2 (not negative) The table should be re-ordered so the columns are: "visited country (1)" on the left then ""did not visit country (0)" on the right So the upper-left box is "(1,1) f=3 A" upper-right box is "(1,0) f = 2 B" lower left is "(0,1) f=2 C" lower right is "(0,0) f = 3 D"

UMIT SENESEN  Jul 29, 2011
Printed
Page 192
4th paragraph

The formula should read as following: E(ij) = (ith row total x jth column total) / grand total instead of E(ij) = (ith row total x jth row total) / grand total

Note from the Author or Editor:
correct: change the second "row total" to "column total" in the formula in the 4th paragraph

Maksim  Jun 23, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 192
Table 10.3

Second row, second column should be Cell22 and not Cell21.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct: the fourth cell should read Cell22 (22 is subscript)

Maksim  Jun 23, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 194
the 4th paragraph, the 3rd line from bottom

Currently: "In this case, 21.7 is a highly significant value ..." It should be 45.5 (the sum), not 21.7 (single value of one cell).

Note from the Author or Editor:
the sentence should read "In this case, 45.5 is a highly significant value..."

Anonymous  Nov 08, 2011
Printed
Page 198
Table 10-10

The rows and columns have confusing headings. Possibly the first row and first column (merged) are there by mistake. As printed, the table doesn't make any sense.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Table 10-10 needs some slight reformatting, so the labels "Before viewing the commericial" occupies only two rows, with bars above and below (so it is aligned with the labels "for capital punishment" and "against capital punishment"). Similarly the label "after viewing the commericis should occupy two columns, so the left edge of the "against capital punishment" column extends upward one more row.

Anonymous  Nov 23, 2008
Printed
Page 199
First few lines

Where are the tables for Chi-square distribution with 1 degree freedom that you refer to? How would I interpret such a table?

Note from the Author or Editor:
Add the following footnote: tables of critical values for the chi-square and other statistics are available online from the web site of the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda3674.htm The asterisk to the footnote should go in the first line of p. 199: "(the critical value*...

Anonymous  Nov 23, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 206
Table 10-14

'Player A' combined batting average given as '323', should be '0.323'

Note from the Author or Editor:
In table 10-14, third row last column the number should be 0.323, not 323

Colm Ryan  Jun 08, 2010  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 212
to the right of the z 4 lines up from bottom

says 7.45-85.5 when it should say 74.5-85.5

Anonymous  Oct 18, 2008  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 225
4th paragraph

i.e., where there are n dependent variables (x1, x2...) should read i.e., where there are n independent variables (x1, x2...)

Anonymous  Feb 19, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 234
2nd paragraph 2nd line

"medians for the different rates are \$164,331, \$199,628..." and so on till the end of the line. Where these numbers are coming from? The never used later either.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 234 2nd paragraph modify first sentence to read: "From the graph, you can see that there is a general rise in house prices with rising interest rates; in fact the medians for the different rates are \$164,331, ..."

Anonymous  Oct 14, 2009
Printed
Page 235
Right in the middle

First, the sigma sigma y_ij is given as 253,160. A few lines down it reads: Grand mean: sigma sigma y_ij = ... = 21,096 This should read: Grand mean: (sigma sigma y_ij) / 12 = 253,160/12 = 21,096

Note from the Author or Editor:
Grand mean: (sigma sigma y_ij) / 12 = 253,160/12 = 21,096

Anonymous  Apr 29, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 236
table 12-3

Problem expanding y_ij = mu + alpha_i + epsilon with alpha_i = y_i_bar - y_i. Table 12-3 actually shows values that would be correct if we think that alfa_i = y_i_bar - mu Also, it's not clear where epsilon values come from.

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 236 1st formula: change y_i to y_bar p. 236 just above Table 12-3, after "as shown in Table 12-3." add "Note that the epsilon values are simply the difference, or error, between the price as predicted from the grand and group means, and the actual, observed price."

Anonymous  Oct 14, 2009
Printed
Page 237
1st paragraph

Within-group variance formula probably should be Sum_i Sum_j(y_ij - y_i_bar)^2/a(n-1). That is, formula should use y_i_bar, not y_i. Also, it's not explained what is "a"

Note from the Author or Editor:
p. 237 first formula within-group variance numerator change y_i to y_bar_i (as first term of numerator in 2nd formula, for between-group variance) 2nd group of formulas at mid-page: same correction to SS_within formula: change y_i to y_bar_i p. 236 near top, 1st formula (after "can be estimated by:" y_i should be y_bar; also the bar on the first term is too high above the character p. 236, last sentence beginning "The mean of squared deviations from the grand mean" add "(where a = the number of groups and n the number of observations per group)":

Anonymous  Oct 14, 2009
Printed
Page 266
Figure 14-1

On page 266, Figure 14-1 swaps CO2 and CH4 in the graph. The upper line (squares) is actually CH4, while the lower line (diamonds) is actually CO2. I verified that CO2 and CH4 numbers in Table 14-1 are reasonable approximations of real CO2 and CH4 data. So, the data in the table is right, and the graph is wrong. On pages 267 and 268, the resulting regression models are scrambled. Example 14-1 is actually the correct regression output for (temp = beta + alpha * CH4), not CO2. This requires changing the caption AND the table (under "temperature", change "co2" --> "ch4"). Example 14-2 is similarly incorrect. The caption should be: (temperature = beta + alpha * CO2), not CH4. And the regression output is correct for CO2, so you must change both the caption AND the table (under "temperature", change "ch4" --> "co2"). Example 14-3 appears to be correct. On page 268, under "From the results of the analysis, you can observe that:", section 1 is scrambled. Change CO2 to CH4 (three places), and change "F(1,8)=12.18, p=0.008" to "F(1,8)=25.77, p=0.001". And, change "t=3.49 ... p=0.000" to "t=5.08 ... p=0.171". Section 2 is also scrambled, and there's a typo. Change CH4 to CO2 (three places). Change "temperature = 15.03 + 0.18*CH4" to "temperature = 15.03 + 0.018 * CO2" (note the extra zero). Change "F(1,8)=25.77, p=0.001" to "F(1,8)=12.18, p=0.008". And, change to "t=5.08 ... p=0.171" to "t=3.49 ... p=0.000". Section 3 appears to be correct. The explanatory paragraph, beginning "Thus, CH4 concentration" appears to be correct.

Mike Pogue  Dec 28, 2008
Printed
Page 351
Equation for CI

2.77exp[+-1.96(0.00959)] should be 2.77exp[+-1.96(0.0959], 2.77exp(+-1.88) should be 2.77exp(+-0.188), and below that, e^188 should be e^0.188 and e^-0.188 .

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct: on p. 351 the third line of the equation should be: 2.77 exp(+-.0959) The fourth line should be: 2.77exp(+-0.188) and in the paragraph following it should read "the upper bound is (2.77)e^.188" (the .188 is a superscript) and "the lower bound is (2.77)e^-.188"

Anonymous  Jan 04, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 357
equation for Crude Odds Ratio

50 x 20 should be 50 x 120

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct: numerator of OR formula near the bottom of the page should be 50 x 120

Anonymous  Jan 04, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 358
equation for OR(MH)

The equation for the MH common odds ration is not correct. In general, the dividend of the sigmas is not equal to the sum of the dividends of the individual sigma terms. Perhaps the right hand side should be something more like this?: (40x45)/150 + (60x25)/150 ---------------------- (30x35)/150 + (50x15)/150

Note from the Author or Editor:
The correction is correct. There should be a single numerator and single denominator rather than two fractions added together.

M Pogue  Jan 05, 2009
Printed
Page 359
2nd Paragraph

"Power is 1-B and is the probability of accepting the null hypothesis when you should reject it. " The text is defining beta not Power. It should read ".......is the probability of rejecting the null....".

Note from the Author or Editor:
text should read "is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when you should reject it.

Brian Joseph  Nov 30, 2011
Printed
Page 369
First section

You already introduced the Z-score on page 128, complete with exercises on p. 150.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Revise the beginning of first sentence of the first paragraph under "Standardized Scores" as follows: The standardized score, also known as the normal score of the Z-score (further discussed in chapter 7), transforms..." and drop the clause "which is discussed in Chapter 7." from the end of this sentence

Anonymous  Apr 29, 2009  Jul 01, 2009
Printed
Page 395
last examples

In the first example under "Properties of Roots", it is possible to take the cube root of a negative number, so a and b do not need to both be greater than zero in all cases. Do you mean m and n must both be >= 0? In the last example under "Properties of Roots", there is no variable b. Again, do you mean m and n?

Note from the Author or Editor:
On the first example, drop the phrase "where both a and b >= 0" On the second example, it should read "where b is not equal to 0" (using the "not equals" symbol" On the third example, it should read "if n and m are positive integers and a >= 0)"

Anonymous  Aug 13, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 397
First example

"If a = b, then a + b = a + c" should read "If a = b, then a + c = b + c"

Anonymous  Aug 13, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 397
First bullet point

On page 397, in the first bullet point under "Solving Equations" the example equation (If a = b, then a + b = a + c) is wrong. It's supposed to be an example of adding a constant to both sides of an equation, so it should be something like a + c = b + c.

Note from the Author or Editor:
correct: line should read: "If a = b, then a + c = b + c (changing a constant...."

Anonymous  Sep 22, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 403
First paragraph

"...if a = 5 and b = 6, then a < 5 and a < b are both true..." First inequality is false.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Change to "then a < 6 and a < b are both true.."

Anonymous  Aug 13, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Printed
Page 404
2nd paragraph

"Remembering from our review of exponents that y^1=1/y" However: y^1=y. Probably you wanted to apply n=1 for y^(-n)=1/y^n

Note from the Author or Editor:
The sentence should read: "Remembering from our review of exponents that y^-1 = 1/y."

Anonymous  Jan 13, 2010  Aug 12, 2011
Printed
Page 420
1st paragraph

The SPSS Programming and Data Management book is not out of print. The current version is always available as a PDF from http://www.spss.com/statistics/base/data_management_book.htm. You can also order a printed copy of the book.

Note from the Author or Editor:
change to "(which may be downloaded in PDF format or ordered in book format from http://www.spss.com/statistics/base/data_management_book.htm)"

Anonymous  Aug 06, 2008  Dec 01, 2008
Mobi
Page 5388
2nd paragraph

Above page number is the location on my Kindle. Pagination not available. RE CHAPTER 10: MULTIPLE REGRESSION Author writes: "There are various popular rules of thumb for interpreting tolerance and VIF; one popular rule is that tolerance should not be greater than 10 or VIF lower than 0.10." I believe the second clause should read, "VIF should not be greater than 10 or tolerance lower than 0.10."

Note from the Author or Editor:
The sentence should read "tolerance should not be less than 0.10 or VIF greater than 10"

Anonymous  Sep 14, 2013