Dear Tipsters, I detected a slip in my posting. Here is the corrected version.
Stuart Dear Karl, Here is what I do. 1. Strictly speaking, I define the term independent variable to mean the variable that is manipulated in a true experiment. Also, I like to equate "factor" to independent variable. 2. Consquently the dependent variable is the response that may vary as a function of the independent variable. 3. However, I teach that if the study is a quasi experiment in which a variable is manipulated but not accompanied by control of extraneous variables (e.g., two intact groups given different treatments), then we may call the manipulated variable independent. 4. One implication of this is that a study that consists solely of subject variables is not a quasi experiment but rather is an ex post facto study. 4. I do not like to use the terms independent and dependent variables for nonexperimental research. In this type of research, the variables on the "input" side may be ex post facto or a personal characteristic of the subject (subject variable). Ideally, this term should be used to describe them. The response of the person can be called a response variable. 5. In a correlational study, a Pearson r may be calculated between, say, measured IQ and reaction time. I suggest that measured IQ be called a predictor variable and reaction time be a predicted variable. 6. Sometimes it is also appropriate to call subject variables predictor variables. Reactions, please - and I can't wait to see what Karl does! Sincerely, Stuart Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Phone: (819)822-9600 Chairperson, Extension 2402 Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, Fax: (819)822-9661 3 Route 108 East, Borough of Lennoxville, E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sherbrooke, Quebec J1M 1Z7, Canada. Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
