Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Social sciences

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Social sciences

Evaluating interventions with differential attrition: the importance of nonresponse mechanisms and use of follow-up data

Article Abstract:

Evaluations of psychological interventions are often criticized because of differential attrition, which is cited as a severe threat to validity. The present study shows that differential attrition is not a problem unless the mechanism causing the attrition is inaccessible (unavailable for analysis). With a simulation study, we show that conclusions about program effects (a) are unbiased when there is no differential attrition, even with usual complete cases analysis; (b) may be severely biased when based on usual complete cases analyses and there is differential attrition; (c) are unbiased when based on the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, even when there is differential attrition, as long as the attrition mechanism is accessible; and (d) are biased, even with the EM algorithm, when the attrition mechanism is inaccessible. Following Little and Rubin (1987), we advocate the collection of new data from a ranodm sample of subjects with initially missing data. On the basis of these data, we propose a simple correction to the EM algorithm estimates. In our study, the correction produced unbiased estimates of program effects parameters, even with an inaccessible attrition mechanism and substantial differential attrition. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher. )

Author: Graham, John W., Donaldson, Stewart I.
Publisher: American Psychological Association, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Applied Psychology
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0021-9010
Year: 1993
Methods, Statistics, Statistics (Data), Psychology, Experimental, Experimental psychology, Occupational therapy

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Inaccurate reporting and inappropriate variables: a reply to Vecchio's (1990) examination of cognitive resource theory

Article Abstract:

In an article in the 'Journal of Applied Psychology.' Vecchio (1990) purported to test cognitive resource theory (Fiedler, 1986; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987). We present evidence that Vecchio's article seriously misrepresented previous work on cognitive resource theory and also contained several flaws in methodology that call into question his conclusions regarding the validity of cognitive resource theory. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)

Author: Fiedler, Fred E., Murphy, Susan E., Gibson, Frederick W.
Publisher: American Psychological Association, Inc.
Publication Name: Journal of Applied Psychology
Subject: Social sciences
ISSN: 0021-9010
Year: 1992
Research, Cognition

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA



Subjects list: Evaluation, Psychological research
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Multi-mode interaction among technologies. The nature of lead users and measurement of leading edge status. The transformation of technological regimes
  • Abstracts: Interindustry wage differentials in Brazil. Productivity Growth in Indonesia: The Role of Regional Characteristics and Direct Foreign Investment(*)
  • Abstracts: Global interdependence or the European fortress? Technology policies in perspective. Regional cohesion in Europe? An analysis of how EU public RTD support influences the techno-economic regional landscape
  • Abstracts: A view from the field: the personal challenges and rewards of consulting worldwide on sexuality education. Hot debates and difficult labors: sexuality education in Queensland, Australia
  • Abstracts: Strategic research interests, organizational behavior, and the emerging market for the products of plant biotechnology
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.