Evaluation Studies as Topic - Science topic

First of all, I am unfamiliar with using monographs for critiquing research. In this case, I am tasked with critiquing a qualitative research project in linguistics, discussed in monograph format. I have not determined a topic, which makes it very difficult to search for a primary source. I am hopeful to find a monograph on language variation or cross-cultural pragmatics. Actually, any topic from the field of linguistics would satisfy the assignment.

I have three groups taking pre-post tests and I scored the tests items as binary 1 for correct, 0 for incorrect. The issue is that I used the total (Sum Scores) of the items (e.g. 12 correct out of 24 (total)) for exploratory & descriptive data analysis and plotting. However, I used the original binary data for modelling (Generalized Mixed-effect Model)

Also, I ran ANOVA for assessing the baseline knowledge (pre-test) to see if the groups started at the similar level before the intervention.

I am very beginner in data analysis and I would like to ask if I am doing this right.

Thank you very much!

The Hodrick-Prescott (HP) filter is a widely used tool for trend-cycle decomposition in economic time series analysis. Alternatives like the Christiano-Fitzgerald filter, Hamilton's OLS regression, and the Baxter-King filter offer different methodologies for extracting cyclical components, each with unique properties and applications. Boosted versions of the HP filter aim to enhance its performance in real-time data analysis. Hodrick-Prescott (HP) Filter The HP filter is designed to separate a time series into trend and cyclical components. It minimizes the sum of the squared deviations of the series from the trend, subject to a penalty for the trend's curvature. Commonly used with a smoothing parameter (\lambda = 1600) for quarterly data, it has been criticized for introducing spurious dynamics, especially at the series' endpoints. Christiano-Fitzgerald Filter This filter is a band-pass filter that estimates cyclical components by passing frequency components within a specified range. It is based on the work of Burns and Mitchell, focusing on the business cycle's definitions. The Christiano-Fitzgerald filter is often preferred for its ability to provide clearer estimates of cyclical behavior compared to the HP filter. Hamilton's OLS Regression Method Proposed by James Hamilton, this method critiques the HP filter's effectiveness, suggesting that direct regression on past values can yield better forecasts. Hamilton's approach (H84) uses OLS to predict future values based on recent observations, avoiding the pitfalls of the HP filter. It has been shown to produce greater volatility and less credible trend movements during key economic periods compared to HP and Baxter-King filters. Baxter-King (BK) Filter The BK filter is another band-pass filter that estimates business cycles by focusing on frequency components between 6 and 32 quarters. It is designed to provide a more accurate representation of cyclical behavior, aligning closely with the definitions of business cycles. The BK filter is often compared with the HP filter, with studies indicating that it can produce more reliable estimates in certain contexts. Boosted Hodrick-Prescott Filter The boosted version of the HP filter incorporates additional forecasting methods to enhance its performance, particularly at the ends of time series. This approach aims to reduce the revisions typically associated with the HP filter by integrating forecasts from other models, such as Hamilton's regression. Studies have shown that the boosted HP filter can outperform traditional HP methods, especially in real-time data analysis and during economic turning points.

my application :

In my recent paper , I propose that photons are not just energy carriers but also encode spatial and informational coordinates within a holographic plane. This hypothesis suggests a new interpretation of quantum phenomena, such as wave function collapse, quantum entanglement, and delayed-choice experiments, without invoking retrocausality.

Key points for discussion:

I welcome your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions on advancing this hypothesis or designing experiments to test it.

Some reviewer comments are legendary for their brutal honesty or blunt critique. Here are a few examples that have sparked debates (and maybe some tears):

Share your own stories or thoughts—how do we turn criticism like this into something productive? Let's discuss!

I have a sample size of 10 participants and get Cohen's d of 1 to 1,3. I would like to know if I can use the online conversion effect size calculator to convert these d in NTT

I asked some LLMs to craft some meaningless but beautiful word salads for me. Then tested many LLMs with those word salads (just gave them the word salads as prompts). Every single tested LLM praised the passage and then gave an in-depth analysis of the "beautiful poem" they had received! Reminded me of the critiques of many post-modern or modern paintings that praise pieces of ***.

Then I told the AIs that they were fooled by word salads created by their mates. Their responses were really impressive.

Think we can use this word salad challenge as a new (or if not new, as a good) way of testing LLM intelligence and understanding. Also the ability of LLMs in creating good-enough word salads was impressive.

---------------------

Edit 12 August 2024: Even asking LLMs to create word salads is itself a good way of weighing their relative intelligence. Some are much better than others.

Hi!

I have 4 variables. 3 IV and 1 DV.

If a research design has two groups , not randomly assigned, selected through purposive sampling , with one intervention introduced by a gap of 6 weeks and is also checked through regression analysis , what kind of a research design will it be called?

1. comparative quasi experimental design with pre-post test

2.quasi experimental design

3.longitutdinal pre-post test design?

How we make 95% CI (lower and upper) far, when overlap in analysis, whether we can use effect size to make difference in lower and upper interval

I am a student of public policy studying the policy cycle. I am curious about the potential role of citizens within this cycle as well as critique about the current situation I am writing from New Zealand, interested in health policy and also issues regarding the Treaty of Waitangi

I begin my cosmologically metaphysical critique of the foundations of Heidegger’s work, with a statement of concern. Anyone who attempts to read this work without first reading my arguments in the book, Physics without Metaphysics?, (1) without being in favour of a new science-compatible metaphysics and concept of To Be, and (2) without a critical attitude to Heidegger – is liable to misunderstand my arguments here as misinformed, denigrative, or even trivial. But I do this critique in search of very general means of constructing a metaphysics capable of realising constant guidance and enhancement to scientific practice.

Contemporary mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, and the human sciences have a shape after undergoing so much growth that we cannot think philosophically without admitting the existence (termed “To Be”) of all that exist, the cosmos and its parts. The general concept of existence is always as “something-s” that are processually out there, however far-fetched our concepts of the various parts of or of the whole cosmos are. “The existence of the totality (Reality-in-total) as the whole something whatever” and “particular existence in the minimally acceptable state of being something/s whatever that is not the whole totality” are absolutely trans-subjective and thus objectual presuppositions behind all thought.

Today we do not have to theoretically moot any idea of non-existence of the cosmos and its parts as whatever they are. This is self-evident. That is, basing philosophical thinking – of the very nature of the existence-wise metaphysical presuppositions of all that are subjective and objective – upon the allegedly subjective origin of thought processes and concepts – should be universally unacceptable.

Therefore, I think we should get behind Heidegger’s seemingly metaphysical words – all based on the human stage on which Being is thought – by chipping his prohibitively poetical and mystifying language off its rhetorically Reality-adumbrating shades, in order to get at the senses and implications of his Fundamental Ontology as Being-historical Thinking. It suffices here to admit that the history of Being is not the general concept of the history of the thought of Being, and not the history of the thought of Being.

Moreover, it is not a necessity for philosophy that the Humean-Kantian stress on the subject-aspect of thought be carried forward to such an extent that whatever is thought has merely subjectively metaphysical Ideal presuppositions. All subjective presuppositions must somehow be taken to possess the merely subjective character.

There are, of course, presuppositions with some conceptual character. But to the extent some of them are absolute, they are to be taken as absolutely non-subjective. These presuppositions are applicable without exception to all that is, e.g. To Be and all Categories that may be attributed to all that exist. HENCE, SUBJECTIVE PRESUPPOSITIONS ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR CONCEPTUAL PRESUPPOSITIONS.

This fact should be borne out while doing philosophy, without which no philosophy and science are possible. The weight of the subject-aspect continues to be true of thought insofar as we go to non-absolute details of metaphysical presuppositions and empirical details, and not when we think only of the metaphysical Ideals of all existents in themselves.

It is true that there is no complete chipping off of the merely subjective or anthropological aspect of the Heideggerian theory. Nor is there an analysis without already interpreting anything. The guiding differentiation here should be that between “the subjective” and the “conceptual”. The conceptual is not merely subjective, but also objective. It is objective due to the inheritance pattern behind it from the objectual.

Such a hermeneutic is basic to all understanding, speculation, feeling, and sensing. The linguistically and otherwise symbolic expression of concepts and their concatenations is to be termed as the denotative universals and their concatenations.

At the purely conceptual level we have connotation. These are purely conceptual universals and their concatenations. Since these are not merely a production of the mind but primarily that by the involvement of the generated data from the little selection of the phenomena from physical processes, which are from a highly selected group of levels of objectual processes, which belong to the things themselves.

At the level of the phenomena, levels of objectual processes, and the things themselves there are universals, which we shall term ontological universals and their conglomerations. These conglomerations are termed so because they have the objectual content at the highest level available within the processes of sensing, feeling, understanding, speculation, etc.

The above should not necessarily mean (1) that we cannot base thought fully on the Metaphysical Ideals of “To Be” and “the state of existents as somethings”, and (2) that we cannot get sufficiently deep into the fundamental implications of his work by side-lining the purely subjective concepts of the fundamental metaphysical concepts. This claim is most true of the concept of To Be.

To Be is the simultaneously processual-verbal and nomic-nominal aspect of Reality-in-total, and not merely that of any specific being, phenomenon, or concept. For Heidegger, To Be (Being) is somehow a private property of Dasein, the Being-thinking being. To Be which is the most proper subject matter of Einaic Ontology (metaphysics based completely on the trans-thought fact of the Einai, “To Be” of Reality-in-total) is not the Being that Dasein thinks or the Being that is given in Dasein, because To Be belongs to Reality-in-total together and in all its parts.

Even in Heidegger’s later phase highlighted best by his Contributions to Philosophy: From Enowning, his concept of To Be as belonging to the Dasein which is the authentically Being-thinking human being has not changed substantially. Even here he continues to project positively the history of Being-thinking human being as the authentic Being-historical process and as the essence of the history of all that can be thought of.

Against the above metaphysical backdrop of essentially anthropocentric definitions, I write this critique based on cosmological-metaphysical necessities in philosophy, and indirectly evaluate what I consider as the major ontological imperfection in Heidegger’s thought from the viewpoint of the Categorial demands of the history of metaphysics, various provincial ontologies and scientific ontology, and of the way in which I conceive the jolts and peaks in such history.

Along with the purely meta-metaphysical To Be, (1) I present the metaphysical abstract notions of Extension (= compositeness: i.e., having parts) and Change (= impacts by composites: i.e., part-to-part projection of impact elements) as the irreducibly metaphysical Categories of all existents and (2) argue that Extension-Change existence in their non-abstract togetherness as existents is nothing but Universal Causation (= everything is Existence-Change-wise existent, i.e. if not universally causal, existence is vacuous).

These are metaphysical principles that Heidegger and most philosophers till today have not recognized the primordiality of. Most of them tend to fix to existence universal or partial or absolutely no causality. In short, Universal Causation, even in some allegedly non-causal aspects of cosmology, quantum physics, philosophy of mind, and human sciences, is to be the taken as a priorias and co-implied by existence (To Be), because anything existent is extended and changing...! No more should sciences or philosophy doubt Universal Causality. Herein consists the merit of Einaic Ontology as a universally acceptable metaphysics behind all sciences – not merely of human sciences.

To Be is the highest Transcendental Ideal; Reality-in-total is the highest Transcendent Ideal; and Reality-in-general is the highest Transcendental-Transcendent Ideal of generalized theoretical concatenation of ontological universals in consciousness. These are meta-metaphysical in shape. They are not at all classificational (categorizing) of anything in this world or in thought.

Although Heidegger has not given a Categorial scheme of all existents or Categorial Ideals for all metaphysics and thinking, he is one of the few twentieth century thinkers of ontological consequence, after Aristotle (in favour of an abstract concept of Being) and Kant (against treating the concept of Being as an attribute), to have dealt extensively with a very special concept of Being and our already interpretive ability to get at To Be.

I present here in gist the difference between the Dasein-Interpreted concept of Being and the ontologically most widely committed, Einaic Ontological, nomic-nominal, and processual-verbal concept of To Be, which should be metaphysically the highest out-there presupposition of all thought and existence. This is the relevance of metaphysics as a trans-science.

Bibliography

(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

Every so often, someone presents work that is derivative of mine (e.g., Lightspeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe or LEHU).

That particular hypothesis or postulate is impossible to defend. Richard Feynman proposed the hyperspherical topology in a lecture, but he couldn't defend it because of the problems it creates.

My theory - The Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) solves those problems.

It emboldened many copycats who believed they could jump in the wagon and take part in the HU's model (for example, LEHU) and run.

By the way, I should clarify that LEHU is part of HU's model, not because I was the first to propose it, but because I am the only one who can defend it.

That creates flawed models where the flaws are obvious.

Here, I present a critique of one of these models. Feel free to disagree or agree in the comments.

The Comprehensive Ecological Evaluation Index (CEEI) is a quantitative measure used to assess the overall ecological health or sustainability of a particular ecosystem or area. It aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the ecological condition by integrating multiple ecological indicators into a single numerical value.

The theta parameter (latent variable) in Item Response Theory (IRT) is not a measure for tester-takers' ability although it may be positively correlated to the test-takers' ability?

The comment below is true for IRT:

"When in 1940, a committee established by the British Association for the Advancement of Science to consider and report upon the possibility of quantitative estimates of sensory events published its final report (Ferguson eta/., 1940) in which its non-psychologist members agreed that psychophysical methods did not constitute scientific measurement, many quantitative psychologists realized that the problem could not be ignored any longer. Once again, the fundamental criticism was that the additivity of psychological attributes had not been displayed and, so, there was no evidence to support the hypothesis that psychophysical methods measured anything. While the argument sustaining this critique was largely framed within N. R.Campbell's (1920, 1928) theory of measurement, it stemmed from essentially the same source as the quantity objection." (PDF) Item Response Theory and Its General Total Score. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337001176_Item_Response_Theory_and_Its_General_Total_Score [accessed Feb 21 2024].

When my work receives insults, my papers are scrutinized, I get more exposure, third parties sympathize with my self published more, etc.

I know I can use a paired t-test or repeated measures ANOVA, but I want to run a series of paired t-tests--is it possible to do them all at the same time? I want to see if there is a greater difference for some pre/post tests than others.

Are you passionate about education and technology? We're on the lookout for dedicated reviewers to help us shape our upcoming book, "Embracing Technological Advancements for Lifelong Learning."

🔍 What we're seeking:

If you're interested in joining us as a book chapter reviewer, please send us message with your C.V at [mhawamdeh@qou.edu]

Hi There,

I'm a very non-traditional Ph.D. candidate absolutely struggling through the stats interpretation of my data.

Control/Intervention group, high school students ages 14 to 16

Intervention: three inclusive sex/health education lessons that focused on education about gender & sexual minorities.

- pre & post knowledge test

- Pre & post homophobic behavior Scale

- Pre & post transphobic behavior scale

- pre & post classroom climate scale

1. What are my options to help with normality of data? I've read some articles about

2. What's the best data analytic plan moving forward?

I'm truly a novice at statistics, I took stats many, many years ago and what knowledge I did have took a hit when I suffered a massive concussion (no pun intended). Getting some support with a tutor & I've been doing my best with YouTube videos but could really use some advice, as I'm often unsure if I'm headed in the right direction.

Thank you!

I have looked in the usual places (CEBM, CASP, JBI, MMAT) and none seem applicable. Would I use the qualitative tool from one of these organisations, of the systematic review tool? Any advice gratefully received.

what are those appropriate methods? Critique concerning the methods will be appreciated.

In a non-equivalent control group design (pre-post-test + control/experimental groups), with non-random selection (purposive sampling), random assignment and samples of 16 per group, in order to test the differences between means within groups as well as between groups. Taking into consideration that the recommended minimum size for running T-Tests is 30 (Pallant, 2020; Turner, 2014), should I run T-test only for in-between groups comparison? What should I do for within-group comparison of means with such small samples?

Advise please!

Thanks in advance.

I have run a pre-post-test intervention design.

I have two groups: experimental and control

My dependent variable was measured twice, pre and post intervention.

I want to find out if the intervention was more effective (produced a greater change in scores from pre to post test) for first year students compared to second year students.

What analysis do I need to run? I have established the intervention is effective in general (significant interaction was revealed between group and time) but I also want to find out if year of study affects the interventions success.

I work on the history of psychotherapy in Germany and I keep finding examples of the exclusion, non-integration or marginalization of psychoanalytic approaches from universities. I am currently looking for literature from the history of science or STS that deals with the position of psychoanalysis in academia (preferably international, but I would also like specific national contexts). What relevant works deal with the critique of psychoanalysis?

I am grateful for any recommendations!

Are critique texts able to be coded (as well as interviews), to establish a model or a particular issue?

I am currently struggling to work out the best test for analysis. I have 16 participants of which I have split into two groups (placebo and treatment). Each participant completes pre supplementation testing where they are tested for sprint speed and jump height. 7 days later after supplementation period they return and carry out the same tests. I want to see if the treatment had any effect, and differences pre and post test. I am really confused whether I need to use independent and dependent t tests or 2x2 anova. Any help would be great

My research involved interventions with 3 different groups (control and 2 experimental groups). Each group got a different treatment. The pre and post test consisted of 10 multiple choice questions where the participants either got 0, 1, or 2 marks for each question depending on how they answered. I ran an multi-covariate analysis (to control for students' English level and to control for their pre-test scores) for the total scores and could see which groups were significantly better overall after the interventions and found one of the experimental groups did significantly better. Now I want to analyze each item of the test individually to see on which question did they improve the most on and which questions were there no improvement. I used a one-way ANCOVA controlling for English level and pre-test but it seems like very few of the items were significantly different between the three groups, possibly due to the small range of values (0-2). Am I going about it the right way? What SPSS test should I use if I want to see which questions on the pre/post test did the 3 groups do significantly better on when compared to each other? Thanks in advance for any help.

In case you find so much to critique in a published article, book, or paper of your current university lecturer or professor, how prudent is it to review it, and how do you go about it?

Writing a critique about an article in nursing

Hi,

I would like to investigate whether pre-post test scores are dependent on participant’s prior experience/knowledge of the intervention (ie. yes or no. I’ve analysed the pre-post test scores using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, however, I’m not too sure how to go about analysing it against participant’s prior experience.

Thank you.

Hi everyone, I'm dealing with a one-dimensional 10-items psychological scale that is widely used in the literature to measure a certain psychological construct. The fact is, however, that there are no studies in the literature that analyze its internal validity (using factor analysis or other methods), but only results regarding reliability (Cronbach's alpha or omega) are always presented.

In our data (N > 500) this scale has good reliability, as reported in other studies, but the CFA I conducted (Mplus, estimator = MLR) does not fit [SBχ²(35, N = 557) = 553.958, p < .001; SCF = 1.42; CFI = .710; TLI = .627; RMSEA = .163, 90% CI [.151, .175], p < .01]. I believe this is an item-wording and item content overlap problem, because several items are similar to each other (or even synonymous). In fact, the modification indices provided by Mplus suggest that several items' residuals are strongly correlated (M.I. over 100.0).

Therefore, I would like to present these results and critique the validity and usefulness of the scale. Could you please point me to any references/studies I can cite that show that these types of situations are very problematic for the validity of the scale and can therefore invalidate the research results?

I have consulted Podsakoff et al. 2003, 2012, but do you have any other useful references in mind for my purposes, specific on this issue?

Thank you very much

Lorenzo

Dear and Distinguished Fellows from the solid-state physics R^G community.

Does have anyone read after 20 years the preprint from Prof. Laughlin A Critique of two metals?

I read it when I was a PhD student. I think his opinion after 20 years deserves more attention. Please, feel free to follow down the link to the arXiv preprint if somebody has an interest and please leave your opinion:

I'm looking for examples of programme evaluations which can be critiqued by students. Anyone out there have a useful and accessible PE report? not too technical

Hello everyone.

I am planning a one-group pre-/post test design (I am aware of the limitations, including a control group is unfortuntately not feasible) and want to measure whether var 1 predicts var 2 at time 1 (simple regression); whether the intervention changes the value of var1 and var2 (paired t-test); and whether the change (if existent) in var1 predicts the change (if existent) in var2. In brackets are my suggestions on how to approach these questions statistically.

First question: I will have a small sample (violation of assumptions incoming) and might therefore conduct a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test instead of a t-test, does this make sense?

Second question: Is there a better way to establish the change in this design (again, also considering that I have a small sample size)?

Third question: What is the best way to go about the last question, so whether change in var1 predicts change in var2 (again, also considering that I will have a small sample)?

Thank you.

The Scientific method of obtaining facts are by the Elements of Empiricism ,Determination ,Parsimony and Testability.

When knowledge is derived from later stages of parsimony it may not easily be recognised and classified as speculation and not scientific.

Example ,if the assumption of 2 people as being in a room is solid( parsimony),I need not observe directly( empicism) to infer that the number of people in a room is 1( determinism) when I have information that 1 person has left the room( truth).This truth is repeatable despite location( Testability).

Should one work with inferences ( Principles that have been attested),are the products thereof not scientific enough.

Fixation to the direct basic elements of scientific method as the proof of an outcome being scientific may be an error.

Are the supra observation bias laden?

Critique.

Hi all.

We are conducting a systematic review looking at varies research designs, some mixed methods and mixed studies. Through previous experience the MMAT is applicable Microsoft Word - MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-08.docx (pbworks.com).

But wonder if there any other tools out there that can be recommended please? Something generated in the last 5 year if possible. Or if the MMAT is recommended as a framework to review such studies.

Many thanks

Kris

how to explain to a critique that 70% etoh extract should not vary much from an 80% etoh extract of a plant material. As both studies followed the same extraction process. I need to justify this so I can use that paper as a reference for my characterization of the constituents present in the plant material. I am not in the situation where I can undergo my own characterization. Thank you in advance for your help

I am doing critical appraisal and using JBI appraisal tool. I m not quite sure how to critique this paper due to unclear study design

My understanding is Retrospective can only be observational studies.

Hello,

I have two sets of questionnaire data for pre and post test. It's measure people financial behaviour using the 5-Likert scale. Each participant fill in the pre-test and post-test. Each variable consists of 3-4 questions. The questions are about their financial behaviour. How to analyse that data to determine that their financial behaviour is changing when comparing the data between the pre-test and post-test. Can we use just a normal paired t-test?

I submitted one book manuscript and am starting another. This time on Nietzsche's critique of ideology. Work title: Beyond Priest and Slave: Nietzsche's Psychological Critique of Ideology. I ask if anybody is aware of strong recent works in that area. Key terms would be Nietzsche-psychology, Nietzsche-subject, Nietzsche-Priest/Slave, Nietzsche-criticism of Ideology, Nietzsche-Political Criticism. I probably know the classics, but don't pretend to know the entire Nietzsche library. Pointing me towards relevant works would be much appreciated.

asking about MA article review. what are the resources to learn about the following?

-choosing the quality meta-analysis/search engines

-format for reviewing generally

-critique

-word limit

Some supervisors are exceptionally adorable. However, a few colleagues have shared some bitter experiences they encountered with their supervisors.

Experience has it that the relationship between the Student (researcher) and a supervisor (mentor) depends on the zeal and input of the student. The ability to exhibit originality would embrace a smooth process.

To what extent do you Agree / Disagree with my stand? (See below).

1. Have a meeting with your supervisor at the start of the study to understand the "do's" and "don'ts"!

2. Take note of the Memorandum of Understanding for the study.

3. Always be time-bound in your submissions.

4. Follow instructions and respond to queries accurately and promptly.

5. Avoid plagiarism and observe ethical procedures!

Per your experience do you think these points when followed, would make the process smooth for students’ success?

Kindly share your view, Add, agree, disagree, and critique.

Hello,

I have a question regarding non-parametric alternatives for a RM-ANOVA.

In my study I had two groups that were measured on two timepoints (pre-post measurements only). I was planning to conduct a repeated-measures ANOVA instead of mixed models, since I only have a pre-post test. However the data is not-normally distributed so I'm looking for a non-parametric alternative. It's suggested to use Friedman ANOVA, however this only works if you have > 2 groups. Therefore I wonder if I'm even allowed to do a RM-ANOVA.

Is it then recommended to perform mixed models instead, or is there a recommendation for a non-parametric alternative of a RM-ANOVA for 2 groups with 2 timepoints?

Thank you in advance for the suggestions!

Can you sugggest a critique paper which is a quantitative research in live with Early Childhood Education?

Is there any way, may be offered by a theory, to assess an art critique?

I will do single group pre post test in evaluating training. In that case, what strategy i should follow between experimental or survey research?

Hello,

I am doing a Mixed-Method study using a Pre-Post Test analysis to see if scores increased after an intervention. I will have a control group and treatment group. I know that I need to do a paired-samples t-test but my question is on how to analysis a small and unequal sample size. My control group had 8 students and treatment group had 13. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Kyle

I've done a pilot test with a retrospective pre-post test questionnaire to measure changing in attitude. Now I want to enter the data collected from questionnaire in SPSS to do a confirmatory factor analysis. should I enter each item of a retrospective question as a different variable?

I have just completed a pilot study to assess if a piece of software improved user awareness in a situation. I used 12 people who completed the same pre-post Likert questions, before and after using the software. Since the same group was used pre/post, I used Wilcoxon signed-rank for analysis.

I am now designing a full study in which I would like to assess the effectiveness of the software with a larger cohort. My intention is to split the cohort into control and intervention. Both groups will complete the same pre-test survey of Likert questions and watch a video (related to the topic). The control group will then complete the post-test Likert questions and finish. The intervention group will use the software for various tasks, evaluate it and provide feedback, and complete the same post-test Likert questions.

My questions are:

Does that sound like a sound experiment?

Which statistical analysis methods should I use to assess the effectiveness of the software between groups?

Hello,

I am undertaking a Rapid Evidence Assessment for Nursing. 2 of my selected papers are Cross Sectional Surveys that include free text and so I think that makes them a mixed method study.

I am really struggling to find a critiquing framework that is suitable.

Any suggestions would be gratefully received!

Thank you!

Decolonizing the education system has been a topic covered by a multitude of scholars in the disciplines of Sociology, psychology, Political Economy and even Political Sciences. Its main goal has been the detachment of the curriculum from its Western-centric or Euro-American pedagogy. Third world scholars claim that their voices have been ignored in the academy; furthermore, their unique perspectives and epistemologies have been suppressed, silenced and avoided. Mainstream theories of the Western world have been exported to the developing countries, compelling third world students to adapt to the knowledge economy replicating the developed countries; even after graduation, they go on to become technical workers and managers for transnational corporations. Therefore, the form of education that the Western world is spreading all over the world is in the form of an industrial trainer which benefits their International Enterprises as they absorb the educational conformist learners at the end in the job market. The postcolonial condition has witnessed the continuation of colonial administrations, business functions and path-dependence whereas the sources of income for the employed requires technical learning and highly vocational skills from the youth. Third World academics have only been given the task of interpreting Western discourse, language, International standards and educational benchmarks, without necessarily producing their own knowledge, participating and advocating their opinions and experiences. Third World academics have had to play the catch up game with the West, losing more and more courage to produce their own unique, specific, geographically located and relevant ideas. Books in institutions of higher learning, and also journal articles are usually Western-oriented. How can the third world create its own discourse, pedagogy, perspective, knowledge, theories and ideas in the 21st century? Most Third World scholars do publish books and journals intended at critiquing the continuing domination in the economic and intellectual sphere by the West, but their critiquing never follows any practical and useful recommendations nor does it provide any frontiers or introduce other ways of doing and thinking for the decolonial goal in education to be progressive and successful. What hinders the decolonization process in education?

For a complete background of the study here's a link below: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340399105_Going_it_all_alone_Africa's_potential_for_delinking_from_the_neoliberal_paradigm

When our institution had to switch rapidly to remote instruction, professors who had not taught remotely before wondered what the best blend of synchronous and asynchronous activities would be. Our office of Instructional Design developed an instrument to assist them; Professors completed a relatively short questionnaire asking questions regarding their course, and themselves. These questions led to a recommended model for online instruction, and a recommendation of a second model which is also likely a good fit. The recommendations are not intended to be binding in any way.

We were unable to locate a similar extant instrument, and are seeking critique or resources that would help us refine the instrument.

I have been modeling and forecasting deaths, death rates, prevalence (active cases) and incidence (new cases) for international countries and U.S. states. Most recently it has been possible to propose safe dates when easing of social restrictions can be gradually implemented.

These can be found in postings (#13 and #12 for weekly updates and #11 for Social Easing) on the following. I invite comments and critiques.

I collected pre-post data from a randomized controlled experiment. The intervention for the experiment group is an educational game and the pre-test and post-test contains 10 multiple-choice questions. The data is coded as 1= correct and 0=incorrect.

What is the right statistical test to analyse pre-post test?

Dear all,

I want to know if i can carry out a d Cohen effect size for pretest - posttest design with control group ?

I have the means and SD of the intervention group and the control group in the pretest and the post test. Which of the data do I use to calculate the d Cohen effect size ?

Thanks

my project is on immigrant women in their postnatal period, I have designed a short simple questionnaire to ask women at discharge from clinic, but I have to have the questionnaire not only in one language but also in some languages; since the questionnare must be answered at 48 hours after birth, I can't do pre-post test and it's almost not possible do it for more than one languages. I want to know if there is a way that my work to be valid and reliable?

Since I am a leadership student, i had looked at

1. Implementation and its impact on experienced teachers.

2. Mindfulness for leaders and teachers

Could you help me to frame my research question? Any suggestions and critiques on both the topics are also welcome.

So I'm working on a PhD on the diversity of values in organizations, and I've used the theory of basic human values. I haven't stumbled on any significant critique against the theory, I've heard rumors that there is - and with any good theory there should be a school of thought that also opposes the theory. Does anyone here know any authors that have criticized the theory? and on what grounds? I'm mostly interested in critique based on ontological and epistemological discussions - not empirical tests with e.g. deviations from the value structure or something like that.

I am currently starting to write a literature review for my Doctoral Thesis. As I am writing, I am wondering about the acceptability of using only three books as references for a chapter (not the whole discussion) in my literature review.

The reason why I am doing because I found these three books are recent (2012, 2014, & 2015) and already consist of abundant information for the chapter.

I am writing a chapter about Depression and these three books has already given me information about 1) Types of Depression 2) Causes of Depression (from Biopsychosocial aspect) 3) Effect of Depression 4) Best Available Treatments 5) Prognosis of Depression. Furthermore, for me, these sub-chapters are already enough for one chapter only. Considering that there are still many to come.

Any critique or suggestions are welcome.

Thank you

Hello all,

I have been advised to include the grey literature in the review for. my PhD. I am confident in how to review articles that appear in the peer-reviewed periodicals but I am struggling with the grey literature (conference papers, articles in professional bulletins or magazines etc.) As you all know, these are usually short and certainly don't match the rigour of an article published in a journal I've been trying to find help on the net, to no avail. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thank you,

Claire

I am currently writing a proposal for a pre:post test where schoolchildren will be participating in an open day showcasing diversity in nursing roles. The faculty will be 50/50 male female hoping To attract more young men into nursing. I will primarily measure if the open day has changed the likelihood of choosing nursing as a career and also specifically look at the amount of males say the would apply to nursing.

any advice on questionnaire design and data analysis would be appreciate.

I have a couple studies that were classed as pilot RCTs that I'm not sure if they are suitable to be critiqued using the Risk of Bias tool (Cochrane) for a systematic review. My concern is the size of the trials, although they do have a good method.. for example:

I've done some readying into the Cochrane Risk of Bias exclusion & defining terms but the document does not mention low powered RCTs (specifically the pilot or feasibility RCTs) - link: https://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Resources-for-authors2017/what_study_designs_should_be_included_in_an_epoc_review.pdf

I'd appreciate your valued expertise on this matter. Many thanks!

Jacques Ranciere's theory of Politics of Aesthetics has been used on post-political governance in many countries, is there any critiques on applying this theory to the non-European context where social democratic consensus-building as in post-War Europe has been absent?

review a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation.

Dear Researchers,

Im planning a one small group (less than 20) design study, using pre and post test (one is six-point likert scale and another one is four-point likert scale, both about stress reduction) and the Independent variable is one intervention protocol. I am not sure what statistical test to use?

Thank you so much for help!

I am working on a project and want to compare the differences in a pre and post survey with the same participants. I have attached the survey. With this type of survey response options for this 20 question practice survey, what type of statistical tests are best to use?

I have recently started doing western blots in my lab. After transferring my gel onto the nitrocellulose membrane. I wash the blot 1 time with TBST then block with 5% non-fat milk for 1 hour at room temp. I don't wash the blot after blocking. I pour off 5% milk and add 1:1000 dilution of primary antibody in 1% milk at 4 degree overnight. I wash the blot 3 times with TBST in 5 minute intervals then I add the secondary antibody 1:5000 and 1:2000 dilution in 1% milk for one hour. Wash the secondary off with TBST 1 time for 5 minutes then I view on the imager.

Not sure what caused this smear? Any critiques to my protocol would be helpful.

I completed a pre-post test with students who participated in a simulation activity and I need to analyze the data. There are approximately 96 surveys (pre and post have equal responses) that have 7 questions regarding their knowledge/attitudes before and after the activity. The study involved students from different disciplines. The students had to indicate what their discipline is so I can also correlate that data separately.

1. What test is appropriate to run for the entire data set since it is ordinal data that is unpaired.

2. How do I analyse the questions to evaluate change from each discipline separately to see if their was a significant difference between the disciplines?

I've been out of the game for a long time and am relearning SPSS as well so any help you can provide is greatly appreciated.

I am conducting a quasi- experimental research in (The effect of extensive reading on reading proficiency and strategies of EFL learners). I use two instruments for data collection ; a reading strategies questionnaire and reading proficiency pre- post test. I have only 10 weeks for the treatment, and there is not enough time to do test- retest to measure the reliability. There are about 35 participants in each group ( the experimental and control) so my question is that can I measure the reliability of the instruments on the same participants after using them ?

I am planning to train 2500 parents on parenting issues. I want to do pre and post test to determine immediate knowledge and attitude changes

Hi all,

i have numerous articles that assessed single groups through dependent samples T tests and concerned themselves with within grouo comparisons. They however did not provide cohens d effect sizes for the pre and post intervention means and standard deviations that were given.

can anyone suggest an online calculator or other means to calculate cohens d with the info they have provided (pre and post test mean group scores as well as standard deviations associated with each)?

i would really appreciate some advice.

thank you

I am teaching a public relations course in the fall. One of the dominant narrratives of the beginnings of PR as an industry is that it was heavily influenced by Freudian ideas about the importance of subconscious emotional impulses.

Of course Freudian psychology has been heavily criticized so I am looking for a nice, scholarly treatment of the problems of Freudian psychology that second year, non-psych students would be able to grasp. Is there anything out there you know of? Thank you.

Hi all,

I conducted an experiment where I had three groups filling in the POMS and Affect Grid (mood/arousal questionaires) before and after the manipulation (a game-design).

My question is if the difference (POST-PRE) score of one group significantly differs than the difference score of another group. However there are a couple of things I (think I) need to take into account:

1 the POMS questionaire did not had the same amount of questions for every participants (because of offering the questionaire in 2 different languages)

2 the pre- scores of all the groups should be taken into account (to rule out pre-existing (significant) differences).

For point 1 I checked the internal consistency of the POMS questionaire with cronbach's alpha. These were good results. Can I therefore proceed and use the sum-scores and mean scores?

For point 2 I compared the pre-scores and there were no significant existing differences.

How should I now conduct the test to see if there are any significant differences between the difference scores of the three groups?

Hi all,

I conducted a quasi-experiment with a control and experimental group where both completed a pre- and post-test. The dependent variable uses a scale measure.

As the sample size was only 19, I read online that I need to use a non parametric test.

I will be using SPSS to analyse the data and was wondering which non parametric test is most appropriate?

Thanks in advance

HI All

Is the LR within a SLR descriptive or should there be elements of critical analysis as well. This is taking into account that the SLR will have a discussion section where appraisal/critique will take place.

Thanks.

Good morning! I have started my dissertation work this summer. My topic is Online Student Orientation. I am currently looking for a Pre/Post Test Instrument that has already been tested for internal validity. Any thoughts as to where I can begin looking for this instrument? I do not want to create it from scratch, otherwise I will need to test the instrument for internal validity.

Thank you!

Elizabeth Rodriguez

Doctoral Candidate

Can some one help with what sort of headings /subheadings to have in the Literature Review if the research hypothesis is as follows:

HO1: There is no significant difference in the mean achievement scores of learners taught using traditional and cooperative teaching strategies.

HO2: There is no significant difference in the learners’ mathematics pre- and post-test mean achievement scores in both the cooperative and traditional teaching strategies.

HO3: There is no significant difference in the mean performance scores of male and female learners taught using the traditional teaching strategy.

HO4: There is no significant difference in the mean performance scores of male and female learners taught using the cooperative teaching strategy.

Hello,

I would like to measure the effectiveness of a hiring process. I have data about:

* the interview process (which could be mapped to a number / Likert scale, i.e. what the interviewers thought about the candidate)

* the employee assessment (once hired they are given feedback on a 5pts Likert scale underperforming to outstanding).

I would like to compare the interview score and employee assessment and see if they are as expected (i.e. if the interviewers were unanimous about hiring the candidate, we expect him/her to do well on the assessment)

I have used paired t-test / wilcoxon signed rank on pre-post tests before, but wondering if I shouldn't use a Pearson's correlation coefficient instead this time?

Thank you for any advice, good reads to help me decide!

I have ran a study comparing the Daily Mile and HIIT in children to see which is best for improving cardiovascular endurance (Beep test) and anaerobic power (20m sprint).

Scores on both test were measured before and after the interventions so it is a differences in the change in the mean of the scores post both interventions to see which is greatest.

Which is the correct statistical analysis to run on SPSS? I thought a one-way repeated ANOVA but I am now doubting myself.

Any help is appreciated.

I have to establish a working evaluation of a nutrition couseling program in a village in Ghana. Because of time constraints it was suggested that I evaluate the effectiveness of the nutrition counseling by having a pretest immedicately before and a post-test immediatly after counseling. I instinctively think this is going to inflate scores and was thinking a longer interval may prevent this, but since this is my first research project I could be wrong. Any advice on testing intervals?

hi

Libor Neumann published same results in physics essays 30,2(2017)

It is imperative some labs start to use this effect to produce electricity using horizontal gravity a descibed in Gravityforces.com

Louis