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 >