On 24 Jan 2001 20:11:25 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Warner) wrote:
>
> First off, can we get an operational definition of 'self esteem'? ...
Oh! I hoped he was using 'self esteem' as a place holder for
a hypothetical study. Sort of like, Professional baseball teams
sometimes have trades featuring 'a minor leaguer to be named later' --
here was, 'some useful concept to be named later.'
If you just take 'self esteem' in a generic way, by itself, it was
never more than a joke... despite what the El-Hi school system of
California might think. (oooh, perhaps I slander them - what I
know is mainly from comedians on TV.)
My homepages (not my stats-FAQ) has a URL,
- "Self-efficacy" information "self-esteem" (repairing that term) with
sufficient detail and complexity. re: "Arthur Bandura"
By the way, if you have Pre-Post on one measure, you
almost need to plot the points on a well-labeled graph
(what is max, what is min?) before you BEGIN to draw
conclusions.
- Then, a *disordinal* interaction is just about
the only EFFECT that I can think of, which cannot be
discounted as artifactual or pretty trivial. If you don't have
a control group on hand, you need to have
information about what a control group SHOULD look like.
For instance, in Education:
If you group the highest IQ versus lowest,
the "regression" for a year or two will be opposite:
the highest will learn more new stuff, faster, and get further ahead.
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
