Affiliation:
1. Office of Educational Development and Department of Biomathematics and Biostatistics, and School of Public Health, at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
2. Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, at the University of Maryland
3. Center for Social Organization of Schools, at Johns Hopkins University
Abstract
The ecological fallacy involves interpreting results based on ecological entities, such as environmental settings, as applying to individuals. A less familiar error, the individual differences fallacy, involves interpreting results based on individuals as applying to settings. Although this second error has been quite common, little is known about the empirical consequences of using different units of analysis. This study examined the psychometrics of environmental scales when the units were individuals, observed settings, and "artificial" or random settings. Results confirm that settings rather than individuals are the appropriate units of analysis. However, methodological changes will be required beyond use of settings as units. In this study, standard reliability estimates based on settings were equivocal and only a special environmental index, the split-sample correlation, appeared adequate. Thus techniques specific to the problems of environmental research are needed.
Subject
General Environmental Science
Cited by
12 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