Paul Smith wrote:
You may be right, and I'll sure be more attentive to this kind of
thing the next time I review a textbook.
On the other hand, if this is really the culprit, it'd be about the
only thing that my students learned in that kind of detail from their
textbooks. <grin>
I wish that was the only cause. Right now I am trying to convince my
students to the best of my abilities that one should use the same
dependent measure in the experimental and control conditions.
At the moment, I am utterly unconvincing.
Ken
On 4/12/06, Ken Steele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wonder if part of the problem is due to the way experiments are often
described in courses other than research methods. Here is a slightly
exaggerated description of an experiment that I hear people use,
"So Smith and Steele were interested in the question of whether caffeine
improves memory. The IV was caffeine and the DV was number of trials to
learn a list of words to a 90% criterion. The experimental group
received 300 mg of caffeine. The results showed that the experimental
group learned the list in significantly fewer trails."
Notice how much emphasis there is on the treatment of interest and how
little is said about the role of the control group or the point that it
is the difference between the groups that we are evaluating.
This tendency to focus on the experimental treatment in our descriptions
may contribute to the confusion of an IV with a specific condition.
Ken
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
--
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth M. Steele, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology http://www.psych.appstate.edu
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608
USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
