I should be grateful if someone would let me know of some literature (at "idiot" level) on the use of SPSS using generalisability theory. I have a data set of assessment results from a number of sources and believe the latter to be an appropriate way to analyse the results reliably.
School of Medicine
The University of Queensland
The Breast Cancer Site is back and needs your help in funding mammograms for women in need.
Help make early detection possible every day with a simple click, at no cost to you.
Visit http://www.thebreastcancersite.com today!
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Hector Maletta
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2006 11:15 PM
To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: Brief Conceptual Question
Picky indeed, Richard. In my first point, of course I am referring to the
same result, only obtained from two samples of different size. In my second
one, the difference is immaterial for the question asked. In both a priori
and a posteriori interpretations the idea is the same for the purpose of the
question. I tried to keep my answer as simple as possible for the benefit of
our colleague asking the question, who may be confused by too many niceties.
De: Richard Ristow [mailto:[hidden email]]
Enviado el: Saturday, June 24, 2006 1:48 AM
Para: Hector Maletta; [hidden email] Asunto: Re: Brief Conceptual Question
To be a little picky -
At 11:26 PM 6/23/2006, Hector Maletta wrote:
See phrase in brackets and caps:
>1. The larger the sample, the greater the statistical significance of
>a statistical result <OF THE SAME OBSERVED MAGNITUDE, WITH THE SAME
>UNEXPLAINED VARIANCE IN THE DATA>. This means that the larger the
>sample, the lower the chance that the result is just a fluke or chance
>2. If F is above a certain minimum value, you can bet (with a certain
>degree of confidence) that the proportion of variance explained by
>your model is not zero.
Alas, not so; confidence levels tell you something different, and much
less satisfying. What Hector is describing is called the *a posteriori*
probability that you have a false positive result THIS TIME. The
significance level is the *a priori* probability of getting a result
this strong, in the absence of any true underlying effect.