 |
 |
Agreed. It's a psych postgrad mailing list, not an episode of Eastenders. (Although a psych postgrad Eastenders would probably be quite interesting...) Deborah Rodriguez <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hear hear!
From: Research of postgraduate psychologists. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Faye Cooper
Sent: 24 October 2013 16:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Unequal number of observations across experimental groups
Oh for god's sake. I continue to subscribe to this mailing list and persevere through the dross for useful emails such as those of Cat and those who may help her.
Please keep these petty comments to an individual reply, that is if you must say them at all. It's these emails that make a ridicule of this mailing list so please cease.
I apologise for the group reply, but I feel there are many others who should read this as well.
Thanks
Faye
Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Oct 2013, at 16:44, "panagiotis papaeconomou" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Cat Davies
I am guessing the best way to get started with this would be to first say "hi" and then introduce yourself?
cheers
Panos
> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:18:27 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Unequal number of observations across experimental groups
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Some data I’m working on contains unequal numbers of observations per participant. The data come from an open-ended writing task and we want to compare the number of times which participants across 4 groups use different types of articles (a, the, etc). The writing samples are of differing lengths and so contain different numbers of article use.
>
> What would be the best way of coming up with a comparable score for each type of article per participant and later per group? We could calculate percentages of say ‘the’ use from the total number of articles produced, but that feels unsatisfactory as the percentage score would be more accurate for those participants who produced longer writing samples.
>
> Then I suppose this would have implications for the statistical test employed.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions.