View in EDS

Bootstrap versus Statistical Effect Size Corrections: A Comparison with Data from the Finding Embedded Figures Test.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Bootstrap versus Statistical Effect Size Corrections: A Comparison with Data from the Finding Embedded Figures Test.
Language: English
Authors: Thompson, Bruce, Melancon, Janet G.
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 30
Publication Date: 1990
Document Type: Reports - Evaluative
Speeches/Meeting Papers
Descriptors: Comparative Analysis, Computer Assisted Testing, Correlation, Effect Size, Error of Measurement, Estimation (Mathematics), Higher Education, Meta Analysis, Research Methodology, Sampling, Statistical Analysis, Test Interpretation, Undergraduate Students
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Embedded Figures Test, Group Embedded Figures Test
Abstract: Effect sizes have been increasingly emphasized in research as more researchers have recognized that: (1) all parametric analyses (t-tests, analyses of variance, etc.) are correlational; (2) effect sizes have played an important role in meta-analytic work; and (3) statistical significance testing is limited in its capacity to inform scientific inquiry. However, effect sizes tend to be biased by sampling and measurement error. The performance of the statistical corrections for sampling error bias of R. J. Wherry and P. A. Herzberg is illustrated and reviewed. The corrections are compared with empirical estimates of sampling error derived using "bootstrap" methods. A data set involving the responses of 31 college undergraduates (18 females and 13 males) on the Finding Embedded Figures Test (FEFT) and the Group Embedded Figures Test, is used for illusrative purposes to make the discussion concrete. It is suggested that bootstrap methods provide important insights for the researcher and are readily accessible to researchers due to the availability of user-friendly computer programs that automate the procedure (i.e., programs designed for use on microcomputers). Seven tables illustrate the example. An appendix provides an item analysis for heuristic FEFT data. A list of 65 references is included. (Author/SLD)
Entry Date: 1991
Accession Number: ED325509
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED325509
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED325509
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Bootstrap versus Statistical Effect Size Corrections: A Comparison with Data from the Finding Embedded Figures Test.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thompson%2C+Bruce%22">Thompson, Bruce</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Melancon%2C+Janet+G%2E%22">Melancon, Janet G.</searchLink>
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 30
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1990
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Reports - Evaluative<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Assisted+Testing%22">Computer Assisted Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correlation%22">Correlation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Effect+Size%22">Effect Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Error+of+Measurement%22">Error of Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Estimation+%28Mathematics%29%22">Estimation (Mathematics)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Meta+Analysis%22">Meta Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Methodology%22">Research Methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sampling%22">Sampling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Interpretation%22">Test Interpretation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Embedded+Figures+Test%22">Embedded Figures Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Group+Embedded+Figures+Test%22">Group Embedded Figures Test</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Effect sizes have been increasingly emphasized in research as more researchers have recognized that: (1) all parametric analyses (t-tests, analyses of variance, etc.) are correlational; (2) effect sizes have played an important role in meta-analytic work; and (3) statistical significance testing is limited in its capacity to inform scientific inquiry. However, effect sizes tend to be biased by sampling and measurement error. The performance of the statistical corrections for sampling error bias of R. J. Wherry and P. A. Herzberg is illustrated and reviewed. The corrections are compared with empirical estimates of sampling error derived using "bootstrap" methods. A data set involving the responses of 31 college undergraduates (18 females and 13 males) on the Finding Embedded Figures Test (FEFT) and the Group Embedded Figures Test, is used for illusrative purposes to make the discussion concrete. It is suggested that bootstrap methods provide important insights for the researcher and are readily accessible to researchers due to the availability of user-friendly computer programs that automate the procedure (i.e., programs designed for use on microcomputers). Seven tables illustrate the example. An appendix provides an item analysis for heuristic FEFT data. A list of 65 references is included. (Author/SLD)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1991
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED325509
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED325509
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 30
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Assisted Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Effect Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Error of Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Estimation (Mathematics)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Meta Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Methodology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sampling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Interpretation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Embedded Figures Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Embedded Figures Test
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Bootstrap versus Statistical Effect Size Corrections: A Comparison with Data from the Finding Embedded Figures Test.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thompson, Bruce
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Melancon, Janet G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 1990
ResultId 1