1 / 13

130 likes | 152 Views

Making Comparisons. All hypothesis testing follows a common logic of comparison Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis mutually exclusive exhaustive “Republicans have higher income than Democrats”? Descriptive, relational, and causal. Experimental Design. Draw a random sample

Download Presentation
## Making Comparisons

**An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation**
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.
Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only.
Download presentation by click this link.
While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

**Making Comparisons**• All hypothesis testing follows a common logic of comparison • Null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis • mutually exclusive • exhaustive • “Republicans have higher income than Democrats”? • Descriptive, relational, and causal**Experimental Design**• Draw a random sample • Manipulate the independent variable through treatment or intervention • Random assignment into experimental and control groups • Control (keep constant) other outside factors • Observe the effect on the dependent variable**Inferences about Sample Means**• Hypothesis testing is an inferential process • Using limited information to reach a general conclusion • Observable evidence from the sample data • Unobservable fact about the population • Formulate a specific, testable research hypothesis about the population**Null Hypothesis**• no effect, no difference, no change, no relationship, no pattern, no … • any pattern in the sample data is due to random sampling error**Errors in Hypothesis Testing**• Type I Error • A researcher finds evidence for a significant result when, in fact, there is no effect (no relationship) in the population. • The researcher has, by chance, selected an extreme sample that appears to show the existence of an effect when there is none. • The p-value identifies the probability of a Type I error.**Cross-tabulation**• Relationship between two (or more) variables • Joint frequency distribution • Contingency table • Observations should be independent of each other • One person’s response should tell us nothing about another person’s response • Mutually exclusive and exhaustive categories**Cross-tabulation**• If the null hypothesis is true, the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variable • The expected frequency for each cell**Expected Frequency of Each Cell**• Expected frequency in the ith row and the jth column ……… (Eij) • Total counts in the ith row ……… (Ti) • Total counts in the jth column ……… (Tj) • Total counts in the table ……… (N)**Observed frequencies:**• Expected frequencies:**Chi-square (X2)**• For each cell, calculate: • (observed frequency - expected frequency)2 expected frequency • Add up the results from all the cells**Measures of Association**• Symmetrical measures of association • e.g. Kendall’s tau-b and tau-c • Asymmetrical measures of association • e.g. lambda and Somer’s d • Directional measures of association • e.g. Somer’s d • PRE measures of association • e.g. lambda and Somer’s d

More Related