Re: differences between groups/treatments ?

2000-06-22 Thread lthayer

Look up the topic regression to the mean. This means that of values
measured several times , when extremes are revisited they can be at a
more typical value.
In article <8itf0t$a68$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
  Gene Gallagher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > These are not quite equivalent options since the first one really
> > stinks -- If you are considering drawing conclusions about
causation,
> > you need *random assignment* and the two Groups of performance are
the
> > furthest thing from random.
> >
> > Let's see:  the simple notion of regression-to-the-mean  says that
the
> > Best performers should fall back, the Worst performers should
improve;
> > that's a weird main-effect, which should wreak havoc with
interpreting
> > other effects.
> > Or:  If the Pre is powerful enough to measure potential, then a
> > continued-growth model says that Best performers should improve
more,
> > even given no treatments.
>
> This pattern was described in an obit about two-three years ago in the
> NY Times.  A statistician's obit noted that he'd found a flaw in the
> Israeli air force's training program.  Apparently, the Israeli air
force
> was punishing the worst performers in a test because this usually
> produced a better performance in subsequent tests and was supposedly
> much more effective than positive reinforcement.  They'd found that
> positive reinforcement of the best performers often resulted in a
poorer
> performance on the next test.  This now-deceased statistician pointed
> out the confounding effect of regression to the mean on this
assessement
> of negative and positive reinforcement.  The effectiveness of negative
> reinforcement (punishment) could be nothing more than a chance effect.
>
> I wish I had the citation for the study or the obit.
>
> Does anyone else in the group have a citation of this study?
>
> --
> Eugene D. Gallagher
> ECOS, UMASS/Boston
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


===
This list is open to everyone.  Occasionally, less thoughtful
people send inappropriate messages.  Please DO NOT COMPLAIN TO
THE POSTMASTER about these messages because the postmaster has no
way of controlling them, and excessive complaints will result in
termination of the list.

For information about this list, including information about the
problem of inappropriate messages and information about how to
unsubscribe, please see the web page at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
===



Re: FACTOR ANALYSIS

2000-01-19 Thread lthayer

If these factors were length measured in feet and in yards, would it
make sense to have both in the same model. No

If these factors were measure of ability like IQ, IQ test 1 and IQ test
2, then the question depends on how the two test are related.  If they
are highly correlated, drop one. If they measure different things then
they should be included, if significant.  If they overlap, look at your
hypothesis and make a judgment based on the results.


In article <864hr0$805$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
  "haytham siala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question related to factor analysis.
>
> If a questionnaire item was found to load significantly on more than
one
> factor and let us assume that each factor represents a potential
measurement
> scale for a particular construct, should I retain the same item for
both
> factors (scales) i.e should that same item be included in the two
> measurement scales? Or should I take the highest loading of the item
as the
> decisive solution to which factor it should belong?
>
> Cheers.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.