-- Multiply the first averages by the number of observation for each set of these.
-- Add up the sets of averages.
-- Divide the sum by the total number of observations (Add cardinaility of each set).
-- The result is the average of the averages.
If you say have 4 "average" value and just add these, and divide by 4, the result is "unfair" because average may be of 3 observations, while another of 1000. So, to "compensate" and make every observation just as valuable, you re-generate the "sum of sums" and then divide by the total number of observations.
If all sets are the same you can divide by number of observations.
You can get the average of an average, but you would be averaging one number, so you would get the same result. You can get the average of a set of averages, though to make sense they will often need to be a weighted average of averages.
The grand average of the subgroup averages is calculated by taking the mean of all subgroup averages. This involves summing all the subgroup averages and then dividing by the number of subgroups. It provides a single representative value that reflects the overall average performance or characteristics of the entire set based on the individual subgroup averages. This approach is often used in statistical analysis to summarize data effectively.
It is also an average. It is usually a better measure of the average value of the characteristic that is being measured.
No, a sum of averages is NOT as accurate as the average of the whole. For example: A=avg (1,10) = 5.5 B=avg (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 1 avg(A,B) = 3.25 [Average of averages] avg(1,1,1,1,1,1,10) = 2.29 [The original data set]
You can't average an average because averages are calculated based on specific data sets, and combining them without considering the underlying sample sizes can lead to misleading results. For instance, if you average the average test scores of two classes with different numbers of students, you may not accurately represent the overall performance. To properly combine averages, you need to weight them according to the size of their respective data sets.
You can get the average of an average, but you would be averaging one number, so you would get the same result. You can get the average of a set of averages, though to make sense they will often need to be a weighted average of averages.
The grand average of the subgroup averages is calculated by taking the mean of all subgroup averages. This involves summing all the subgroup averages and then dividing by the number of subgroups. It provides a single representative value that reflects the overall average performance or characteristics of the entire set based on the individual subgroup averages. This approach is often used in statistical analysis to summarize data effectively.
Average = Total/Count so Total = Average*Count.
It is also an average. It is usually a better measure of the average value of the characteristic that is being measured.
No, a sum of averages is NOT as accurate as the average of the whole. For example: A=avg (1,10) = 5.5 B=avg (1, 1, 1, 1, 1) = 1 avg(A,B) = 3.25 [Average of averages] avg(1,1,1,1,1,1,10) = 2.29 [The original data set]
He has many averages, but yes this is one of them.
an average is the most frequent number (or result) in a set of data.
4.5mm
-30 degreesThe summit averages -33F.
It averages 44 inches per year.
A Mean is a type of average, but there are other kinds of averages too, Modes and Medians.
3 major stock INDEXES, not averages, Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), NASDAQ, and S&P 500.