Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Corder-Bolz, C. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Evaluation of Change: New Evidence

Charles R. Corder-Bolz

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory Austin, Texas

A Monte Carlo study was conducted to evaluate six models commonly used to evaluate change. The results revealed specific problems with each. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance of residualized gain scores appeared to substantially and consistently overestimate the change effects. Multiple factor analysis of variance models utilizing pretest and post-test scores yield invalidly low F ratios. The analysis of variance of difference scores and the multiple factor analysis of variance using repeated measures were the only models which adequately controlled for pre-treatment differences, however, they appeared to be robust only when the error level was 50% or more. These results indicated that one of the persistent flaws of models traditionally used to evaluate change is that the generated statistics are confounded with the amount of error variance in the data.

With this insight, a modification of the analysis of variance model was developed. A second Monte Carlo study was conducted to further evaluate the traditionally used models and the modified models. The results confirmed the findings of the first study and suggested that the modified model may be an adequate model with which change phenomena can be evaluated.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 38, No. 4, 959-976 (1978)
DOI: 10.1177/001316447803800416
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL STATISTICSHome page
S. E. Maxwell, H. D. Delaney, and J. M. Manheimer
Anova of Residuals and Ancova: Correcting an Illusion by Using Model Comparisons and Graphs
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 1985; 10(3): 197 - 209.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
D. R. Glasnapp
Change Scores and Regression Suppressor Conditions
Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1984; 44(4): 851 - 867.
[Abstract]