The Unit of Analysis: Group Means Versus Individual Observations

Author:

Hopkins Kenneth D1

Affiliation:

1. University of Colorado

Abstract

This paper shows that the common recommendation to use group means when there may be nonindependence among observational units is unnecessary, unduly restrictive, impoverishes the analysis, and limits the questions that can be addressed in a study. When random factors are properly identified and included in the analysis, the results (Fs and critical Fs) are identical in balanced ANOVA designs, irrespective of whether group means or individual observations are employed. The use of individual observations also allows the exploration of other interesting questions pertaining to interaction and generalizability. In addition, the pooling strategy can be considered. Thus, the question of the proper experimental unit or unit of analysis for treatment effects is answered directly, correctly, and implicitly when the proper statistical model is employed.

Publisher

American Educational Research Association (AERA)

Subject

Education

Cited by 149 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3