Talk:Normal score

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

citation needed for "z scores"?

@Nrcprm2026: @Melcombe: @Woohookitty: @Linelor: @Marcocapelle: @Loraof: @CBM: Thanks to all of you for your work in bringing this article to its current stage. It's clearly valuable, having averaged 25 views per day since 2017-07-01.

However, can someone please provide a citation for the claim that the term "normal score" can be equivalent to "standard score" or "z score"?

I've been working as a statistician for many years, studying the use of statistical methods in a very broad range of disciplines from science and engineering to psychology and public policy. I do NOT recall ever encountering any use of the term "normal score" in the sense of "standard score" or "z score".

However, I also know that my memory has sometimes been faulty and my background not as adequate as I believed. This comes from personal embarrassments corroborated and explained by the research by Daniel Kahneman, summarized in his Thinking, Fast and Slow, that most experts are routinely as overconfident as everyone else in the value of their own judgment -- and many experts can be beaten by simple heuristics developed by a moderately well educated lay person. For that reason, I plan NOT to zap this part of this article immediately.

However, if no one produces a serious citation documenting the claims of the first two of the three paragraphs, I would like a discussion about possibly deleting them -- or moving them to this "Talk" page to make it easier for someone later to restore them after producing a citation.

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall either, nor could I find a source for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on the first meaning. I draw a blank there also. Kotz, Johnson and Campbell (ref below) does not have an entry for this. As for the second, I can supply two other references: Definitely ^[1] and maybe. ^[2] I don't have access to a copy of Puri and Sen. I know they describe tests of the right form, but I couldn't tell from the table of contents whether or not they use this terminology. Aamcintosh1 (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kotz, Samuel; Johnson, Norman; Read, Campbell (1985). Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0-471-05553-0.
^ Puri, Madan; Sen, Pranab (1971). Nonparametric Methods in Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 978-0471702405.

[1] Kotz, Samuel; Johnson, Norman; Read, Campbell (1985). Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0-471-05553-0.

[2] Puri, Madan; Sen, Pranab (1971). Nonparametric Methods in Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 978-0471702405.

[1]

[2]