Sentences with phrase «size coefficient»

On the other hand, the fund's size coefficient is significantly negative.

The value coefficient is higher now, too, but the size coefficient is still unexpectedly large.

(Remember, in the three value funds we considered above, the size coefficients were negative.)

And as we saw in my previous post, it is: the value and size coefficients for XIC are negligible.

Not exact matches

I expected that the stock funds, which were varied in size and geography, to have lower correlation coefficients.

The size of the coefficient made it possible to determine the importance of one attribute relative to another.

Their sample sizes have been adjusted using the methods described in the Handbook and by Donner 2000 incorporating an estimate of the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) derived from the trial (if possible).

While trapped, the molecule's residual movement can be precisely analyzed to yield size and charge sensitive motion parameters in real time (specifically, diffusion coefficient and mobility).

Formally, small - world networks show a ratio γ defined as C / Crandom of ≫ 1 and a ratio λ defined as L / Lrandom of ∼ 1, with Crandom and Lrandom the clustering coefficient and characteristic path length of a random organized network of similar size (Watts and Strogatz, 1998; Sporns et al., 2004).

We show that in fact, so long as the disease is sufficiently polygenic, the selection coefficients of individual loci are insensitive to the fitness cost of the disease, and instead depend on the distribution of effect sizes and the degree of mutational bias toward increased disease liability.

In this analysis, we adjust spending figures to reflect differences in district size and in the costs of providing education before calculating the coefficient of variation.

It also helps that the Discovery's frontal area is reduced and the aerodynamic drag coefficient is just 0.33, which is impressively low for a full - size SUV.

We then factor in your dog's breed composition, information at certain genes that affect size, and their inbreeding coefficient to calculate genetic age.

A 2005 German study of 42,855 litters of «normally sized» (presumably standard) dachshunds found a correlation with the coefficient of inbreeding and the incidence of inbreeding depression in dachshunds.

Higher coefficients will be associated with a diminishing vitality in the dog, smaller litter size, and shorter lifespan (i.e. inbreeding depression).

Conceptually, one would allow the coefficients of the expansion to vary month by month or year by year, except for the station shifts which are the same every year; but that really would blow the size of the problem out of control.

We shouldn't forget that the Energy Performance Coefficient, or EPC, in Deap calculations is based on a building of equal size to the one in question, albeit using standard reference performance values.

When estimating a multiple regression, the effective sample size for each coefficient can be different.

In the question and answer session in a seminar someone saying, «But, Dr Kaplansky, with a sample size of 27, the correlation coefficient you have arrived at is less than experimental error» wouild result in a collective gasp and «ole!»

This reduction in sample size decreases the accuracy of the estimated regression coefficients and causes the standard error to be underestimated during the calibration period.

For instance, «the vehicle now has a coefficient of drag that is 30 % lower than the original concept,» and the battery itself had to be designed in a T - shape in order to increase its size without compromising aerodynamics.

If both air and molasses are described by the viscous NS equations, the only difference is in the size of the dissipation coefficient.

One only need look at the changes in the hyperviscosity coefficients in the manuscript (Table 1) to see that the hyperviscosity (unphysical) is reduced as the mesh size is reduced.

3: You're looking for «significant coefficients of the same approximate size and sign», whereas the proper test would be to check that no more than 5 % of the simulated coefficients exceed the (absolute) magnitude of the observed coefficients.

Assuming a drop - out rate from the trial of approximately 20 %; this sample size was sufficient to detect a standardised effect size of 0.4 at 85 % power and α of 0.05 in the primary outcome measure if there was no clustering and a standardised effect size of 0.6 allowing for clustering by course with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.178 or less; for this sample size calculation, we conservatively imagined clustering within control families as well as intervention families.

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

We inflated this sample size by a design effect of 1.18 to 210 infants per trial arm to allow for correlation between responses within the same cluster (that is, maternal and child health centre), 28 assuming an average cluster size of seven (the number of eligible mothers attending each centre) and an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03.

The standardized (z - transformed) regression coefficients, βs, were taken as within - conditions (or within - groups) effect - size estimates, and the differences between the unstandardized regression coefficients, bs, were tested according to Cohen [29]: z = (b1 − b2) / -LSB-(SE12 + SE22) 1/2].

Overall stimulant effect sizes for overt aggression were negatively correlated with the prevalence of conduct disorder (correlation coefficient [r] = — 0.508, p < 0.05), or oppositional defiant disorder (r = — 0.613, p < 0.05).

To estimate effect sizes, Cohen d was computed by dividing the unstandardized coefficients for intervention effects (accounting for level 1 and level 2 covariates) by the within - group standard deviation.40, 41 Estimates of within - group standard deviation were computed using the raw data for waking cortisol level (to examine the intervention effect on the intercept) and raw data for waking to bedtime change in cortisol level (to examine the intervention effect on the slope).

Pearson's product — moment correlation coefficient was used to address research question 3, which addressed the size of the association between CD / ODD symptoms and level of insecurity.

Path coefficients ranged from.23 to.51, reflecting small to medium effect sizes.

Path coefficients ranged from -.21 to.26, reflecting small effect sizes.

First, the amount of explained variance in this study was small to moderate, with standardized beta coefficients for significant parenting effects ranging in size from.13 to.24.

According to Cohen's rules of thumb [38], a correlation coefficient of 0.10 corresponds to a small effect size.

Effect size estimates (raw regression coefficients or odds ratios) and their variability (standard error or 95 % confidence interval) are reported for each parameter retained in the final models.