|
Adrian,
I don't know how to analyze this but I'm curious about the study design. How
did the design work? Do you present them with a scenario but vary the
outcome likelihood information such that in one condition you say
'likelihood of success is x' and in the other condition you say the
'likelihood of success is 'y out of 100' where y=100*x. And while x varies
over persons, x and y/100 are the same for both of a person's trials? The
person then makes a yes/no decision?
If so, it would seem like the null hypothesis is that the two plotx of
proportion of yeses by likelihood of success should be coincident or, more
correctly, be not different.
Gene Maguin
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of
ac11ca
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 11:13 PM
To: SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: 2 x (2) design with binary-->continuous within-subject variable
Hi there,
I am hoping that you might be able to help me analyse some data from a
decision-making experiment I ran recently.
I have a 2 x (2) design where the within-subjects measure variable changes
from a binary response (i.e., 0,1) to a continuous response (i.e., 0-100). I
realise that this is very odd, but it is central to my current research
question: Are people more like to prefer a risky gamble over a safe gamble
if
the choice is presented as a single play or the accumalted sum of 100 plays?
My data looks like this in SPSS (Note: Format = between-subjects
categorical
IV [coded 1,2] and Plays = within-subjects categorial IV [coded 1,2], and
Choice = DV that is half the time binary [0,1] and half the time
continuous[0-100]):
ID Format Plays Choice
1 1 1 0.00
1 1 2 0.15
1 2 1 1.00
1 2 2 0.78
.
.
.
.
93 1 1 0.00
93 1 2 0.01
93 2 1 1.00
93 2 2 0.97
I started by analysing my data with a mixed ANOVA and found an interaction,
which is what I was hypothesising. Of course, one of the assumptions of the
ANOVA is that the data are normally distributed, which they clearly are not
with my binary response data.
To get around this problem I conducted a repeated measures logistical
regression using the SPSS Generalised Estimating Equations function (GEE)
under a binary model type. However, the GEE method accepts only one
distribution for my within-subjects variable: binomial or scale responses.
If
I chose scale, then I am just running an ANOVA (I think!). If chose
binomial,
then I have to convert the continuous DV to a binary DV (and cut all 50/50
responses), which basically undermines the motivation of the experiment and
eliminates crucial differences.
Thus, I think that I must use the original mixed ANOVA analysis and produce
some hand-waving sort of justifcation. I was wondering if anyone might be
able to help me with this justification. For example, what is the impact of
having a binary DV in the middle of a mixed ANOVA and is it really so bad?
Thanks for any help that you might be able to provide. If anyone wants to
see
the data, feel free to email me at ac11ca[at]hotmail[dot]com.
Cheers,
Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/2-x-2-design-with-binary-conti
nuous-within-subject-variable-tp4837785p4837785.html
Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD
=====================
To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
LISTSERV@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
command. To leave the list, send the command
SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
INFO REFCARD
| 
