 |
 |
I meant to say: you are not aware of but might be affecting the experiment (my last sentence). Sorry for that! On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 20:37 Ali Ilhan <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi again, > > That would depend on the mathematical procedure that you are using and the > experimental setting, I think (I typically do not do experiments but help > other people with experimental data to analyse the results, so I do not > have a definitve say on this). Without having a concrete example to talk > on, it is hard to decide. The variables that you are not aware of are part > of the error term in certain statistical procedures. There are other > procedures, that control for all the time-invariant within unit variance > (such as fixed effects) even if you are not actually measuring or aware of > them. Am I making this more confusing ? :) Or if you are randomising in > an experimental setting, you would be still controlling for that kind of > variables that you are not aware of but might be expecting the experiment. > > > Ali > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 20:16 Luis A. Vasconcelos <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi ali, > > > > Thanks for your message! What if you are not controlling for them? What if, > > in fact, you are not aware of such variables? > > > > I know that what I'm looking for could be also framed as external or > > extraneous variables, but that doesn't tell much about whether such > > variables are a result of particular experimental procedures or maybe > > characteristics of the participants. I also came across 'situational > > variables', but these seem to refer more to the environment in which the > > experiments are conducted. > > > > I'm not sure! > > > > Best > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------