I just today asked a student to change the word "experiment" in her paper to
the word "study" because she simply asked different groups to respond to
questionnaires. Around here, I reserve the label "experiment" to mean a
study that randomly assigns participants to conditions. However I wonder if
I
It's not so much a matter of "wrong" as it is "historically and disciplinarily
limited." See:
Winston, Andrew S. and Blais, Daniel J. (1996) What counts as an experiment?: A
transdisciplinary analysis of textbooks, 1930-1970. American Journal of
Psychology 109(4):599-616.
which can be found on-li
Hi Bill:
I teach research methods and spend quite some time repeatedly over the semester
talking about research versus experiment and why in science it is so important
to use the denotative meaning of words, and not connotative. thus, what NASA is
doing flies in the face of that, and is a disse
be in the lab. or field.
Stick with it, Bill!
Sincerely,
Stuart
From: "Bill Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:We've got it all wrong
Date sent:
I'm going to stick with Sir Fisher and reserve the term "experiment" for
situations where there is random assignment to conditions. I do not know of
any within-subjects designs that would not be better as mixed designs.
Within-subject designs are too easily compromised by history, maturation,
instr
Ripon, Wi 54971 USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --
> From: Mike Scoles
> Reply To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:31 AM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Subject: RE: We've got it all
Hi
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Hatcher, Joe wrote:
> I would argue that random assignment is only a means to
> an end, the end being having at least two groups that are
> assumed to be roughly equal on all variables. Seen that way,
> a within-subjects design is simply another means of achieving
>
I hesitate to chime in here, because I agree with most of what has been
said. Also, as my name has been invoked as an authority of sorts, I am afraid
of muddying the water. But if I can step back and speak without trying to be
"authoritative," it seems to me that all of the distinctions we ma
12:30 PM
>To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
>Subject: Re: We've got it all wrong
>
>
The purpose of randomization is not to produce
>groups that are approximately equal--matching can do a much better job.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
11:56 AM
>To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
>Subject: RE: We've got it all wrong
>
>
>Non-experimental designs can also provide information as useful
>as (or more useful than) marginal or poorly designed experiments.
>Many students appear to believe (wrongly, I think
Don McBurney wrote:
"One not-so-minor point: The purpose of randomization is not to produce
groups that are approximately equal--matching can do a much better job. 1)
Randomization is the only method that guarantees that there is no confounding
except by chance, and 2) the probability that d
72035
> voice: (501) 450-5418
> fax:(501) 450-5424
> *
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Donald H. McBurney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:30 PM
> >To: Teaching i
it was a quasi experiment.
Sincerely,
Stuart
Date sent: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 13:29:48 -0500
From: "Donald H. McBurney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: We've got it all wrong
To: "Teaching in the Psych
I respectfully disagree with much of what you have said, Mike, and probably
because I come from a cognitive perspective where almost everything I do is
repeated measures. Most of the threats to internal validity that you have noted
are not a problem with the type of research that I do, as long a
14 matches
Mail list logo
