000			01691pam a2200265 i 4500
008			760713t1977 nyuaaaaerb 001 0 eng
020			_a0471395757
040			_aDLC _cDLC
050	0	0	_aQA279.2 _b.H54
082	0	0	_a519.5'4 _bHIL
100	1		_aHildebrand, David K.,
245	1	0	_aPrediction analysis of cross classifications /
260			_aNew York : _bWiley, _cc1977.
300			_axv, 311 p. :ill,
500			_aIncludes indexes.
504			_aBibliography: p. 294-299.
520			_aWithout acknowledging the paradigm difference between testing theory and predicting events, researchers in the field of management and organization continue to use the DEL-technique as a promising technique to evaluate theory based on cross-classification data analysis. We address the purpose and interpretation of the DEL-measure within the theory-testing and events-predicting paradigm. We argue that DEL, a proportionate reduction in error measure, is not to be interpreted in terms of the proportionate error reduction of knowing a prediction rule over not knowing it. In addition, a significant DEL-value is not to be interpreted as a dependence-measure of acceptance of a hypothesis as the only and best relationship between two categorical variables, just as a non-significant DEL-value cannot be interpreted as a measure of independence. Furthermore, an alternative proportionate reduction in error measure generates unequivocally interpretable results compared to the DEL-technique.
590			_aaia 26/09/17
591			_aLoans
650		0	_aPrediction theory.
700	1		_aLaing, James D.,
700	1		_aRosenthal, Howard,
942			_2ddc _cBOOK _n
949			_a519.5'4 HIL
999			_c6638 _d6638