A Comparative Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Questionnaires and Philosophy Statements in CEDA Debate.
Saved in:
| Title: | A Comparative Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Questionnaires and Philosophy Statements in CEDA Debate. |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Dudczak, Craig A. |
| Peer Reviewed: | N |
| Page Count: | 23 |
| Publication Date: | 1992 |
| Document Type: | Speeches/Meeting Papers Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Comparative Analysis, Debate, Evaluation Methods, Higher Education, Judges, National Surveys, Predictive Validity, Predictor Variables, Questionnaires |
| Abstract: | A study assessed the predictive validity of two substantially different instruments (a questionnaire or a philosophy statement) which may be used to predict critics' ballot behavior in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate. Questionnaires were distributed to 29 debate tournaments across the United States for completion by critics judging at those tournaments. Judge philosophy statements were retrieved from among those solicited by the CEDA national tournaments. A total of 87 subjects completed the questionnaire with 34 having a minimum of 6 or more written ballots. Usable philosophy statements for 24 of these respondents were gathered. Hence, 34 sets of subjects were used in analysis of questionnaire-ballot correlations and 26 sets of subjects were used to assess philosophy-ballot correlations. Results indicated that: (1) when critics were the unit of analysis, "new arguments" had high negative predictive validity and "inherency" had high predictive validity; and (2) if ballots were taken as the unit of analysis, philosophies were substantially better predictors, but if ballots by critics are combined to make the critic the unit of analysis, the effect disappeared. Findings are limited by the small number of discriminants which emerged as significant and reliable. (A figure representing the construct and technique matrix of tools and eight tables of data are included. (Contains 16 references.) (RS) |
| Entry Date: | 1993 |
| Accession Number: | ED354570 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| FullText | Text: Availability: 0 CustomLinks: – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED354570 Name: ERIC Full Text Category: fullText Text: Full Text from ERIC |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: ED354570 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Conference PubTypeId: conference PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: A Comparative Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Questionnaires and Philosophy Statements in CEDA Debate. – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dudczak%2C+Craig+A%2E%22">Dudczak, Craig A.</searchLink> – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: N – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 23 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 1992 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Speeches/Meeting Papers<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Judges%22">Judges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22National+Surveys%22">National Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictive+Validity%22">Predictive Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: A study assessed the predictive validity of two substantially different instruments (a questionnaire or a philosophy statement) which may be used to predict critics' ballot behavior in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate. Questionnaires were distributed to 29 debate tournaments across the United States for completion by critics judging at those tournaments. Judge philosophy statements were retrieved from among those solicited by the CEDA national tournaments. A total of 87 subjects completed the questionnaire with 34 having a minimum of 6 or more written ballots. Usable philosophy statements for 24 of these respondents were gathered. Hence, 34 sets of subjects were used in analysis of questionnaire-ballot correlations and 26 sets of subjects were used to assess philosophy-ballot correlations. Results indicated that: (1) when critics were the unit of analysis, "new arguments" had high negative predictive validity and "inherency" had high predictive validity; and (2) if ballots were taken as the unit of analysis, philosophies were substantially better predictors, but if ballots by critics are combined to make the critic the unit of analysis, the effect disappeared. Findings are limited by the small number of discriminants which emerged as significant and reliable. (A figure representing the construct and technique matrix of tools and eight tables of data are included. (Contains 16 references.) (RS) – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 1993 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: ED354570 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED354570 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 23 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Debate Type: general – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods Type: general – SubjectFull: Higher Education Type: general – SubjectFull: Judges Type: general – SubjectFull: National Surveys Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictive Validity Type: general – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables Type: general – SubjectFull: Questionnaires Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: A Comparative Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Questionnaires and Philosophy Statements in CEDA Debate. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Dudczak, Craig A. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 1992 |
| ResultId | 1 |
