变量误差法在两组测试前后设计中的应用

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
A. Counsell, R. Cribbie
{"title":"变量误差法在两组测试前后设计中的应用","authors":"A. Counsell, R. Cribbie","doi":"10.1027/1614-2241/a000122","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Culpepper and Aguinis (2011) highlighted the benefit of using the errors-in-variables (EIV) method to control for measurement error and obtain unbiased regression estimates. The current study investigated the EIV method and compared it to change scores and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in a two-group pretest-posttest design. Results indicated that the EIV method’s estimates were unbiased under many conditions, but the EIV method consistently demonstrated lower power than the change score method. An additional risk with using the EIV method is that one must enter the covariate reliability into the EIV model, and results highlighted that estimates are biased if a researcher chooses a value that differs from the true covariate reliability. Obtaining unbiased results also depended on sample size. Our conclusion is that there is no additional benefit to using the EIV method over change score or ANCOVA methods for comparing the amount of change in pretest-posttest designs.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using the Errors-in-Variables Method in Two-Group Pretest-Posttest Designs\",\"authors\":\"A. Counsell, R. Cribbie\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-2241/a000122\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Culpepper and Aguinis (2011) highlighted the benefit of using the errors-in-variables (EIV) method to control for measurement error and obtain unbiased regression estimates. The current study investigated the EIV method and compared it to change scores and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in a two-group pretest-posttest design. Results indicated that the EIV method’s estimates were unbiased under many conditions, but the EIV method consistently demonstrated lower power than the change score method. An additional risk with using the EIV method is that one must enter the covariate reliability into the EIV model, and results highlighted that estimates are biased if a researcher chooses a value that differs from the true covariate reliability. Obtaining unbiased results also depended on sample size. Our conclusion is that there is no additional benefit to using the EIV method over change score or ANCOVA methods for comparing the amount of change in pretest-posttest designs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000122\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000122","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

Culpepper和Aguinis(2011)强调了使用变量误差(EIV)方法控制测量误差和获得无偏回归估计的好处。本研究对EIV方法进行了研究,并将其与两组前测后测设计中的变化评分和协方差分析(ANCOVA)进行了比较。结果表明,EIV方法的估计在许多条件下是无偏的,但EIV方法始终显示出低于变化评分方法的功率。使用EIV方法的另一个风险是必须将协变量可靠性输入EIV模型,并且结果强调,如果研究人员选择的值与真正的协变量可靠性不同,则估计是有偏差的。获得无偏结果也取决于样本量。我们的结论是,在比较前测-后测设计的变化量时,使用EIV方法与变化评分或ANCOVA方法相比没有额外的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Using the Errors-in-Variables Method in Two-Group Pretest-Posttest Designs
Culpepper and Aguinis (2011) highlighted the benefit of using the errors-in-variables (EIV) method to control for measurement error and obtain unbiased regression estimates. The current study investigated the EIV method and compared it to change scores and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) in a two-group pretest-posttest design. Results indicated that the EIV method’s estimates were unbiased under many conditions, but the EIV method consistently demonstrated lower power than the change score method. An additional risk with using the EIV method is that one must enter the covariate reliability into the EIV model, and results highlighted that estimates are biased if a researcher chooses a value that differs from the true covariate reliability. Obtaining unbiased results also depended on sample size. Our conclusion is that there is no additional benefit to using the EIV method over change score or ANCOVA methods for comparing the amount of change in pretest-posttest designs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信