 |
 |
Whole heartedly agree with you Faye!! I am fed up to the back teeth (as some say) with such a negative vibe coming from this list. It used to be such a friendly and welcoming list where anyone could ask a question (even to the point that people would answer the same question again and again without so much as a....this has already been answered!) Why are some insisting on forcing individuals on the list to act in any matter that only they see fit?? Please reserve these comments for yourself or if you must insist on making them ...send them directly to the original poster and not everyone. Thank you Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Faye Cooper<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Sent: ý24/ý10/ý2013 16:55 To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Unequal number of observations across experimental groups > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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. This transmission is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you receive it in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and remove it from your system. If the content of this e-mail does not relate to the business of the University of Huddersfield, then we do not endorse it and will accept no liability.