Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums, for communication between foot health professionals about podiatry and related topics.
You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members (PM), upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, earn CPD points and access many other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisments in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
"Political Correctness" is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end
Hard luck, but in my opinion this does confirm the fact that it is random- just because you have been selected last time has no bearing on the current round of audits because we all go into the hat once again. Someone who really understands probablity will explain it!
Of course, you could go with the conspiracy theory that someone has it in for you?? :-))
Hard luck, but in my opinion this does confirm the fact that it is random- just because you have been selected last time has no bearing on the current round of audits because we all go into the hat once again. Someone who really understands probablity will explain it!
Of course, you could go with the conspiracy theory that someone has it in for you?? :-))
CM
Assuming the selection is generated simultaneously and your man's numbers are correct then the group odds are about 325 in 13000. Or: 1 in 40, if you prefer. Yet, as an individual your odds of being selected are still 1 in 13000. If they are not selected simultaneously (they probably are BTW) then as an individual it becomes: 1 in 13000 at the first draw, 1 in 12999 at the second draw, 1 in 12998 at the third draw.... down to 1 in 12676 at the 325'th draw. Something like that.
Wow that really bad luck but at least you know how to do it, can I come to you for advise next year if I'm randomly picked
Quote:
Someone who really understands probablity will explain it!
I don't 'really' understand probability theory but:
'Random selection or sampling with replacement'
This is the most rigorous way to select a sample or samples from a population and maintain the probability that the sample statistic represents the population parameter. If you sample without replacement then the sample statistic is representative of an ever reducing population that is less probable to be representative of the population of interest.
Dave Smith
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
So, taking Simon's example that shows the probability of being chosen at 40:1 then without replacement the odds of being chosen would be less each year for those left in the pot. With replacement the odds of being chosen remain the same each year.
My assumption or postulation is that if the odds are high then the outcome data is representative of the CPD that is freely chosen to be done, without coercion, by the population of clinicians. Whereas if the odd became less and less then the level and amount of CPD would more likely represent the probability of coerced study and fear of being caught out.
Dave
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
Billy Mack,
The process for jury selection is also supposed to be random ,yet in the last town I lived in (pop approx 88,000) I was selected twice in 2 consecutive years. I think the odds against that must be quite staggering.
You could try sending the HPC last years info and see if they notice.
regards
Catfoot
__________________
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this."
Assuming the selection is generated simultaneously and your man's numbers are correct then the group odds are about 325 in 13000. Or: 1 in 40, if you prefer. Yet, as an individual your odds of being selected are still 1 in 13000. If they are not selected simultaneously (they probably are BTW) then as an individual it becomes: 1 in 13000 at the first draw, 1 in 12999 at the second draw, 1 in 12998 at the third draw.... down to 1 in 12676 at the 325'th draw. Something like that.
Ah, I love this stuff. Yes, simon is correct. Gamblers fallacy is that if it's red 100 times it's still only a one in two chance of being black next time.
One has to consider the bayeristic probability thing. There's two "layers" to probability. Layer one is the obvious. One in 40 * one in 40 is one in 1600. Which seems pretty unlikely. But then if there are 13000 podiatrists then the odds are that about 8 of them will be picked twice. It's easier to show with graphics. I'll draw a picture if I get time. Chances are very good some people get picked twice. You're actual odds are 8.1 / 13000. There's about a 20% chance that some poor sod will get picked 3 times!!
You have to consider the size of the groups. The odds of winning the lottery are 13,000,000 to one, and a few people manage that every single week! The odds of you being picked twice are low. The odds of someone being picked twice are actually very high.
Here you go. Hope this makes it cleaner. The vertical slice is the first cohort. the horizontal is the second. Odds are that about 8 people from the first slice will land in the second.
Further to my post earlier, the flip side is if there were no replacement then once you had been picked you would know that there was no possibility of being picked for 78years so then the HPC might feel that you would have no incentive to do CPD and also no way of checking that you have. Even tho the real truth is that clinicians are generally inclined to do good CPD without any stick to threaten them but that's just the HPC's distorted mistrusting mind set.
Dave Smith
__________________
Descartes seems to consider here that beliefs formed by pure reasoning are less doubtful than those formed through perception.
The Following User Says Thank You to David Smith For This Useful Post:
Thank you all but know one has mentioned how the odds might be shortened....and shortened they have been
They can be shortened if you were selected last time around but chose to defer. In which case this time you will have a 100% chance of being chosen and asked to submit.
Presumably a deferment for either this or the last registration period cannot simply be simply conjured up and would need authenticity. Which raises the question is the selection procedure completely random and infallible....
HPC Audit 2012
Re: HPC Audit 2012
Re: HPC Audit 2012
Linear Mode
