I'll tell ya, I don't see it happening.
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Christopher Green <chri...@yorku.ca> wrote: > > Perhaps (he said wearily), we should end the long-futile effort to enforce > conceptual distinctions by legislating the use of mere words and, instead, > educate people rigorously enough that they are capable and, indeed, > desirous, of respecting and expressing important conceptual distinctions in > the flexible vocabulary of the true sophisticate. > > Chris > ….. > Christopher D Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada > 43.773895°, -79.503670° > > chri...@yorku.ca > http://www.yorku.ca/christo > orcid.org/0000-0002-6027-6709 > ………………………………... > > On Jul 20, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Stuart McKelvie <smcke...@ubishops.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree with Karl. > > > > Here are some incomplete thoughts. > > > > When teaching methods, I would devote time to nomenclature. I suggested > that the terms “independent variable” and “dependent variable” be reserved > for experimental designs. > > > > How, then, do we refer to variables in non-experimental designs? If it is > correlational, I suggested “predictor variable” and “predicted variable” > (if the argument was framed in that manner). In some cases, the predictor > variable might be categorical (perhaps a subject variable) and in others > it might be continuous. If only a relationship was being examined, without > any thought of predicting one from the other, we might say that each one is > simply an associated variable or a correlated variable. > > > > Trickier is the situation where one variable is manipulated, but > randomization has not occurred, as in a quasi-experimental design. Perhaps > the manipulated variable could still be termed “independent”, but it would > be inappropriate to call the other variable “dependent”. I suggested that > “predicted variable” is a safer bet. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________ > > "*F**loreat* *L**abore*" > > > > <image002.jpg> > > "*Recti cultus pectora roborant*" > > > > *Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D.*, *Phone*: 819 822 9600 x 2402 > <(819)%20822-9600> > > Department of Psychology, *Fax*: 819 822 9661 <(819)%20822-9661> > > Bishop's University, > > 2600 rue College, > > Sherbrooke, > > Québec J1M 1Z7, > > Canada. > > > > E-mail: stuart.mckel...@ubishops.ca (or smcke...@ubishops.ca) > > > > Bishop's University Psychology Department Web Page: > > http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy > > > > *F**loreat* *L**abore*" > > > > <image003.jpg> > > > > <image004.jpg> > > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________ > > > > > > > > > > *From:* Wuensch, Karl Louis [mailto:wuens...@ecu.edu <wuens...@ecu.edu>] > *Sent:* July-20-17 7:52 PM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* [tips] Effects, Affects, Independent and Depentent Variables. > > > > > > When using the word “effect,” as in “effect-size,” I sometimes > warn my students that I am using it in the “soft” sense (not causal). A > related concern of mine is the use of the terms “independent variable” and > “dependent variable” in research that is not experimental – that is, when > no variable is manipulated. There is a tendency to use “independent > variable” whenever the variable is categorical and “dependent variable” > when it is continuous. Once I helped a previous student with his > dissertation. No variables were manipulated, but several were > categorical. I help him dummy code the categorical variables and use them > in a multiple correlation analysis, with continuous covariates, to predict > the focal continuous outcome variable. His dissertation advisor told him > no, do an ANOVA instead, because then we have independent and dependent > variables and thus can make causal inferences. > > > > Cheers, > > <image005.jpg> <http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/klw.htm> > > *From:* Annette Taylor [mailto:tay...@sandiego.edu <tay...@sandiego.edu>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 10:08 AM > *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > *Subject:* [tips] Opinions needed > > > > > > Back in the good old days....when I was in graduate school...I > specifically being told by my advisor that "effect" could not be used in a > title unless it was a clearly causal effect. So this does err on the side > of emphasizing causal. Nevertheless, I also heard somewhere from someone > (???) that the reason that the APA guidelines reduced the maximum number of > words for a title in APA style was to focus on the actual variables in the > title and eliminate any suggestion of "effect" in the title to reduce the > abuse of the term "effect" > > > > Now, it makes for splashier headlines when your study gets published and > people can talk about something BY INFERENCE "causing" something else > simply because it is systematically linked with it. > > > > Finally, on a similar topic, I woke up this morning to a news story about > "risk factors" for Alzheimer's and my immediate thought was, how are these > things "risk factors?" Specifically it mentioned hearing loss and sleep > apnea. My understanding of a "risk factor" when talking about health > research is that these are things that are either set: a family history of > ....xyz; or something we can manage such as obesity or smoking. So hearing > loss may be associated with Alzheimer's, might predict that some amount of > the variance in developing Alzheimer's is accounted for by something like > hearing loss. But is the use of the phrase "risk factor" correct in this > instance. > > > > Again, it seems to be a phrase that is being abused, much like "effect" is > being abused. > > > > Early morning musings--so they might be mushy. > > > > Annette > > > Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. > > Professor, Psychological Sciences > > University of San Diego > > 5998 Alcala Park > > San Diego, CA 921210 > > tay...@sandiego.edu > > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences > (TIPS) digest <tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu> wrote: > > Subject: Opinions needed > From: Dap Louw <lou...@ufs.ac.za> > Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 18:27:55 +0000 > Tipsters > > I am well aware that (and often frustrated by) all sorts of buzz words, > concepts, theories, etc become the flavour of the month/year in > organizations, including universities. I would therefore appreciate your > viewpoint on the following, especially as research methodology is not my > field of specialization: > > To what extent can we measure 'effect'? In the last 40 years in > Psychology I've been involved in hundreds of studies on "The effect of > ......... (television on ...; poverty on ....., etc, etc)". BTW, when I > used ' "the effect of" psychology' in Google Scholar search I got 2 460 000 > results. However: > > According to the latest recommendations of our University's Research > Committee we cannot measure effect unless you make use of especially the > longitudinal design. Therefore any title such as "The effect of ......... > (television on ...; poverty on ....., etc, etc)" is unacceptable and should > be replaced by "the perceived effect of ....." or something similar. Is > this a case of methodology or semantics? > > I look forward to hearing from you. It's high time to get the TIPS ball > rolling again! > > Regards from this side of the ocean. > > Dap > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: wuens...@ecu.edu. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13060. > c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b3534420e&n=T&l=tips&o=51065 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51065-13060.c78b93d4d09ef6235e9d494b353442 > 0...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: smcke...@ubishops.ca. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13510. > 2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=51077 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51077-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72 > e...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=430248. > 781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd92&n=T&l=tips&o=51078 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51078-430248.781165b5ef80a3cd2b14721caf62bd > 9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > > > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tips as: micha...@uca.edu. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=357701. > a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa657a&n=T&l=tips&o=51083 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-51083-357701.a768e95c4963686e69b47febf8aa65 > 7...@fsulist.frostburg.edu > > -- Michael T. Scoles, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Psychology & Counseling University of Central Arkansas Conway, AR 72035 501-450-5418 --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@mail-archive.com. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51084 or send a blank email to leave-51084-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
