LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (April 1999)Back to main SPSSX-L pageJoin or leave SPSSX-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 1999 14:46:47 -0500
Reply-To:   "James B. Luther, Ph.D." <jluther@POP.NLCI.COM>
Sender:   "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:   "James B. Luther, Ph.D." <jluther@POP.NLCI.COM>
Subject:   Re: Appropriate design: measures of factor
Comments:   To: Lary Jones <ljones@BINGHAMTON.EDU>
Content-Type:   text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

It would be helpful to know a little more about the purpose of the research, I think. Is the focus on memory research (i.e. accuracy), or on other variables in the pseudo sessions and using those to (in another experiment) predict memory functioning? -----Original Message----- From: Lary Jones <ljones@BINGHAMTON.EDU> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.spssx-l To: SPSSX-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU <SPSSX-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU> Date: Thursday, April 01, 1999 2:34 PM Subject: Appropriate design: measures of factor

>Statis-tickle wizards: > >I really did not get a lot of feed back on the following. Let me >re-present this with a bit more detail. I was trying to protect the >content of the research, but I may not have provided enough detail for you >to respond appropriately. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >A PhD student in psychology came to me with a question about how to >impliment a design in GLM. This question is really about choices in the >design, not so much a question of software options. For purposes of this >question let's say that there are: > >Between Groups Factors: > Gender > "Treatment" >Within Subjects > 5 (pseudo?) clinical sessions or trials > >During each one of the sesions/trials the subjects refers to a number of >past events. Upon checking (with permission) some of these are verified to >occur and some are not verified. > >Each of the subjects returns 4 times and similar classifications and counts >occur in connection with each session. The dependent measures at each >"trial" are the number of verified memories and the number of unverified >memories, such as 10 verified and 7 unverified out of 17 (the number of >events referred to in a session is toally free; it could be 1 or 5 or 17 or >50, for that matter). > >It is unclear to me whether it is better to make this another W/S factor >(verified/unverified), or treat these as multivariate "measures" taken at >each trial. Making this a factor does allow for the direct testing of >interactions with other factors. Treating this as "measures" means one >would look at the discriminant function of the measures for interpretation. > >One could record this as the % of verified memories (and do the arcsin >transformation), but this would lose the number of memories/events brought >up, which i think is important. > >Which way would you go? > >Thanks again, >Lary Jones >_______________________________________________________ >Lary Jones % Statistical Computing Analyst >Computing Services % .......................... >Binghamton University % LJones@Binghamton.EDU >Binghamton, NY 13902-6000 % (607) 777-2879 >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SPSSX-L page