Better for what? Standard deviation is used for some calculatoins, variance for others.
When you don't have the population standard deviation, but do have the sample standard deviation. The Z score will be better to do as long as it is possible to do it.
No. But a small sample will be a less accurate predictor of the standard deviation of the population due to its size. Another way of saying this: Small samples have more variability of results, sometimes estimates are too high and other times too low. As the sample size gets larger, there's a better chance that your sample will be close to the actual standard deviation of the population.
If I take 10 items (a small sample) from a population and calculate the standard deviation, then I take 100 items (larger sample), and calculate the standard deviation, how will my statistics change? The smaller sample could have a higher, lower or about equal the standard deviation of the larger sample. It's also possible that the smaller sample could be, by chance, closer to the standard deviation of the population. However, A properly taken larger sample will, in general, be a more reliable estimate of the standard deviation of the population than a smaller one. There are mathematical equations to show this, that in the long run, larger samples provide better estimates. This is generally but not always true. If your population is changing as you are collecting data, then a very large sample may not be representative as it takes time to collect.
I think its better to use range deviation in any distribution because it doesn't cause any trouble
1. Standard deviation is not a measure of variance: it is the square root of the variance.2. The answer depends on better than WHAT!
Better for what? Standard deviation is used for some calculatoins, variance for others.
The Standard deviation is an absolute measure of risk while the coefficent of variation is a relative measure. The coefficent is more useful when using it in terms of more than one investment. The reason being that they have different returns on average which means the standard deviation may understate the actual risk or overstate depending.
When you don't have the population standard deviation, but do have the sample standard deviation. The Z score will be better to do as long as it is possible to do it.
No. But a small sample will be a less accurate predictor of the standard deviation of the population due to its size. Another way of saying this: Small samples have more variability of results, sometimes estimates are too high and other times too low. As the sample size gets larger, there's a better chance that your sample will be close to the actual standard deviation of the population.
score of 92
Because it is in same units as the original data. For example, if you have a sample of lengths, all in centimetres, the sample variance will be in units of centrimetres2 which might be more difficult to interpret but the sample standard deviation with be in units of centimetres, which would be relatively easy to intepret with reference to the data.
What is mean deviation and why is quartile deviation better than mean deviation?
You most certainly can. The standard deviation, however, has better statistical properties.
deviation 15 is better
to calculate the standard deviation you must put each number in order from the least to the gr east then you must find your mean after you find your mean you must subtract your mean from each of the data set numbers once you finishsubtracting the data set numbers you add them up and divide by the amount of numbers there are and you have found the standard deviation.
To obtain a much better, simpler, and more practical understanding of the data distribution.