1 / 10

Review

Review . Experimental Designs. Requirements: Manipulation of Conditions or Treatments Control for confounding variables Types Between Subjects Within Subjects Larger N Small n . Between Groups IV. Random assignment to treatment groups

ponce
Télécharger la présentation

Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review

  2. Experimental Designs • Requirements: • Manipulation of Conditions or Treatments • Control for confounding variables • Types • Between Subjects • Within Subjects • Larger N • Small n

  3. Between Groups IV • Random assignment to treatment groups • Distribute evenly across levels of IV (e.g. treatment groups) individual differences among participants • Minimize impact if these difference in DV

  4. Within Groups IV • All participants receive all levels of IV • No individual differences across participants as potential confounds, therefore Randomnization is not needed (or possible) • Bias: Order effects: carry-over, fatigue • Counterbalancing (randomly assigned

  5. Within Groups Design • More statistical power than Between Groups: • With same sample size, more observation per condition N=40 Treat 1 Treat 2 • Between Groups 20 20 • Within Groups: 40 40 • Less variability across groups, therefore les sampling error (same individuals) and the higher the chance that p.alpha • Source of bias: crossover effects- order and fatigue

  6. question 22 • IVs • Treatment: Tech vs. lecture –True IV, BW- random assignment • Gender : M F Quasi-Exp BG • DVs Knowledge Score in test • Design 2x2 factorial, between groups- quota

  7. Analyses • ANOVA P values • Main Effect 1 p<.05 Gender • Main Effect2 p>.05 Lesson Type • Interaction Effect p<.05 Interaction

  8. Main Effects • Girls scored better on test than boys (regardless of type of instruction) • Boys score = 75Girls score = 86 p= <.05 • There is no difference in test scores between the Tech and Lecture lesson groups (regardless of gender) • Tech Avg 82.5 Lecture Avg 78.1 p>.05 ANOVA – for main effects

  9. Interaction effect • Boys • boys in Tech G > boys in Lecture group • Girls • girls in Tech G = girls in Lecture group Tech Lecture Boys 80 70 p<.025 Girls 85 87 p>.025 ANOVA for interaction effect --- followed by Test of simple effects – two T-tests; one per gender

More Related