tutorial: Fix duplicate definition of node name "examine".

[pspp] / doc / tutorial.texi

diff --git a/doc/tutorial.texi b/doc/tutorial.texi
index 757a49fbf7b6a4e47fdebba0af84ca558bd66275..47f22cc10323bd49ba520919a63290e0c35fefe3 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/tutorial.texi
+++ b/doc/tutorial.texi
@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+@c PSPP - a program for statistical analysis.
+@c Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+@c Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
+@c under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3
+@c or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
+@c with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
+@c A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
+@c Free Documentation License".
+@c
 @alias prompt = sansserif
 
 @include tut.texi
@@ -367,7 +376,7 @@ seemingly bizarre height for an adult person.
 We can examine the data in more detail with the @cmd{EXAMINE}
 command (@pxref{EXAMINE}):
 
-In @ref{examine} you can see that the lowest value of @var{height} is
+In @ref{ex1} you can see that the lowest value of @var{height} is
 179 (which we suspect to be erroneous), but the second lowest is 1598
 which
 we know from the @cmd{DESCRIPTIVES} command 
@@ -377,7 +386,7 @@ negative but a plausible value for the second lowest value.
 This suggests that the two extreme values are outliers and probably 
 represent data entry errors. 
 
-@float Example, examine
+@float Example, ex1
 @cartouche
 [@dots{} continue from @ref{descriptives}]
 @example
@@ -439,7 +448,7 @@ From now on, they will be ignored in analysis.
 For detailed information about the @cmd{RECODE} command @pxref{RECODE}.
 
 If you now re-run the @cmd{DESCRIPTIVES} or @cmd{EXAMINE} commands in
-@ref{descriptives} and @ref{examine} you
+@ref{descriptives} and @ref{ex1} you
 will see a data summary with more plausible parameters.
 You will also notice that the data summaries indicate the two missing values.
 
@@ -492,14 +501,14 @@ A sensible check to perform on survey data is the calculation of
 reliability.
 This gives the statistician some confidence that the questionnaires have been 
 completed thoughtfully.
-If you examine the labels of variables @var{v1},  @var{v3} and @var{v5},
+If you examine the labels of variables @var{v1},  @var{v3} and @var{v4},
 you will notice that they ask very similar questions.
 One would therefore expect the values of these variables (after recoding) 
 to closely follow one another, and we can test that with the @cmd{RELIABILITY} 
 command (@pxref{RELIABILITY}).
 @ref{reliability} shows a @pspp{} session where the user (after recoding
 negatively scaled variables) requests reliability statistics for
-@var{v1}, @var{v3} and @var{v5}.
+@var{v1}, @var{v3} and @var{v4}.
 
 @float Example, reliability
 @cartouche
@@ -509,7 +518,7 @@ negatively scaled variables) requests reliability statistics for
 @prompt{PSPP>} * recode negatively worded questions.
 @prompt{PSPP>} compute v3 = 6 - v3.
 @prompt{PSPP>} compute v5 = 6 - v5.
-@prompt{PSPP>} reliability v1, v3, v5.
+@prompt{PSPP>} reliability v1, v3, v4.
 @end example
 
 Output (dictionary information omitted for clarity):
@@ -527,19 +536,19 @@ Output (dictionary information omitted for clarity):
 #================#==========#
 #Cronbach's Alpha#N of Items#
 #================#==========#
-#             .86#         3#
+#             .81#         3#
 #================#==========#
 @end example
 @end cartouche
 @caption{Recoding negatively scaled variables, and testing for
 reliability with the @cmd{RELIABILITY} command. The Cronbach Alpha
 coefficient suggests a high degree of reliability among variables
-@var{v1}, @var{v2} and @var{v5}.}
+@var{v1}, @var{v3} and @var{v4}.}
 @end float
 
 As a rule of thumb, many statisticians consider a value of Cronbach's Alpha of 
 0.7 or higher to indicate reliable data.
-Here, the value is 0.86 so the data and the recoding that we performed 
+Here, the value is 0.81 so the data and the recoding that we performed 
 are vindicated.