11 Jul Whether in a scholarly or practitioner setting, good research and data analysis should have the benefit of peer feedback. For this Discussion, you will perform an articl
Whether in a scholarly or practitioner setting, good research and data analysis should have the benefit of peer feedback. For this Discussion, you will perform an article critique on ANOVA testing. Be sure and remember that the goal is to obtain constructive feedback to improve the research and its interpretation, so please view this as an opportunity to learn from one another.
3
Discussion 7: Research Design for OneWay ANOVA
Whether in a scholarly or practitioner setting, good research and data analysis should have the benefit of peer feedback. For this Discussion, you will perform an article critique on ANOVA testing. Be sure and remember that the goal is to obtain constructive feedback to improve the research and its interpretation, so please view this as an opportunity to learn from one another.
To prepare for this Discussion:
· Review the Learning Resources and the media programs related to ANOVA testing.
· Search for and select a quantitative article specific to your discipline and related to ANOVA testing. Help with this task may be found in the Course guide and assignment help linked in this week’s Learning Resources. Also, you can use as guide the Research Design Alignment Table located in this week’s Learning Resources.
By Day 3
Write a 3 to 5paragraphs critique of the article. In your critique, include responses to the following:
1. Which is the research design used by the authors?
2. Why did the authors use ANOVA test?
3. Do you think it’s the most appropriate choice? Why or why not?
4. Did the authors display the data?
5. Do the results stand alone? Why or why not?
6. Did the authors report effect size? If yes, is this meaningful?
Be sure to support your Main Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.
FrankfortNachmias, C., LeonGuerrero, A., & Davis, G. (2020). Social statistics for a diverse society (9th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
· Chapter 11, “Analysis of Variance” (pp. 373399)
Wagner, III, W. E. (2020). Using IBM® SPSS® statistics for research methods and social science statistics (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
· Chapter 10, “Analysis of Variance”
· Chapter 11, “Editing Output” (previously read in Week 2, 3, 4, 5. and 6)
Goal & objectives
For this week's discussion, you will learn how to search for and locate a quantitative article involving analysis of variance (ANOVA) that relates to your discipline by:
· choosing an appropriate subject database
· conducting a search with relevant keywords
· identifying a quantitative research article that uses ANOVA
· find and identify a post hoc study article
Choose a database
Start your search by entering a database that fits your subject area with these steps:
1. On the Library Homepage , click the Research by Subject dropdown.
2. Click on the subject area that matches your program of study from the list.
3. Once you have clicked on a subject, scroll down until you see the list of databases and click on the title to enter the database.
Note: The databases are organized with the largest collections at the top of the list, so selecting the first database is generally a good way to start.
Build your search
Once you are in a database, you will see a search screen with multiple search boxes. We need to set up our search:
· We will use the following keywords to find articles that use this methodology:
· ANOVA
· "Analysis of variance"
· You may also want to search with keywords that describe a topic related to your discipline. You do not have to type in a topic, but if you do, keep the topic broad.
We will build an example search below for articles that use ANOVA with the topic of reading comprehension in the database called Education Source :
1. In the first search box, type:
ANOVA OR "Analysis of variance"
Note: Put quote marks around "Analysis of variance" to glue these words together as an exact phrase.
Note: Type the word OR between these two synonyms to tell the database we will take either the acronym ANOVA OR the phrase "Analysis of variance."
2. For this example topic, type in the second box:
reading comprehension
Note: Some methodologies are rarely used for certain research topics. You may need to broaden your search topic to find a study that uses this methodology.
The search boxes will look like this:
3. Click Search.
4. Look in the article titles and abstracts to determine if the methods used in the article include ANOVA. You can also look in the Subjects listed for an article:
Refer back to the Evaluate your results box for Week 1 for more help.
Note: Articles may use more than one method in their quantitative analysis of data. You can use an article even if it uses other methods along with ANOVA. For instance, an article my use ANOVA and tTest to analyze data.
Try it and test yourself:
How did that work for you? Did you get many results? No results?
Learn more about why you may not be finding any results.
ANOVA resources
The following tutorial will show you how to use our database SAGE Research Methods Online to find information about quantitative methodologies, including ANOVA:
·
Tutorial: SAGE Research Methods Online: A Quick Introduction to Researching Quantitative Methodology
(5 min 42 sec) Closed captioning included in tutorial.
Here are the steps to search inside SAGE Research Methods Online for more information on ANOVA:
1. On the Library Homepage click on the Databases AZ link.
2. Click on S, scroll down, and then click on Sage Research Methods Online .
3. On the Sage Research Methods Online homepage, type the method into the search box:
ANOVA
4. Click the magnifying glass icon to Search.
You will now see your results with a definition of the ANOVA method above the results list. It will look like this:
· This resource from our search gives an overview of the method:
Before You Begin
Before reading this Skill Builder, be sure to review the following concepts:
· Steps in hypotheses testing
· Null and alternative hypothesis
· Alpha level
· Type I and Type II Errors
· ttest for two independent groups
· Definitions of categorical vs. continuous variables
Introduction
When researchers conduct a oneway ANOVA, the goal is to examine whether there are mean differences among two or more groups. The oneway ANOVA is a useful statistical analysis for research designs that involve only one independent grouping variable (called a factor in an experimental design) and a single continuous dependent variable.
Criteria for a OneWay ANOVA
That is, a oneway ANOVA is appropriate in scenarios that meet the following criteria:
· bullet
There is one independent variable
· bullet
There is one dependent variable
· bullet
The independent variable has two or more levels
· bullet
The dependent variable can be considered to be continuous
In an ANOVA, just like in a ttest, a “level" is a group or category.
Example: IAT Research Scenario
In our IAT research scenario below, for example, there are four levels: American Indians, innercity, suburban, and undocumented.
Imagine you want to see if cultural groups have different attitudes toward old people and decide to use the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which is a computerized procedure for measuring attribute discrimination (Greenwald, 2012). Using latency of responses to different kinds of stimuli, the test has been used to study attitudes towards age, race, skintone, religion sexuality, and weight, among other attributes (Lane, Banaji, Nosek, & Greewald, 2007).
You might develop an IAT that measures attitudes toward old people and use it to compare four cultural groups: American Indians living on a reservation, innercity legal residents, suburban legal residents, and undocumented residents. Your interest in comparing four different groups will lead you to consider the oneway ANOVA. In your oneway ANOVA, you would test the following null hypothesis:
HO : μAmerican Indians = μinnercity = μsuburban = μundocumented
The alternative hypothesis would be:
HA : not HO
The null states that all four populations have the same mean for the IAT test: that is, that all four populations have the same attitudes, on average, toward old people. The alternative states that one or more of the population mean differs from the others: that is, that the four populations are not equivalent in their attitudes, on average, toward old people.
Note: You can participate in a study using the IAT approach at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/.
· bullet
Note that although we can use a oneway ANOVA if we have just two levels, a ttest is probably the simpler approach in this case. Oneway ANOVAs are typically used when there are more than two levels.
· bullet
Also note that, although the independent variable in an ANOVA can technically be either categorical or continuous, researchers typically use an ANOVA in cases in which there are not an excessive number of levels. When there are too many levels, there may be very few participants in each level (in each group) and there will likely not be enough statistical power to discern any differences between the groups.
Hence, the oneway ANOVA is usually applied when the independent variable has relatively few levels, and most of the time, the independent variable in a oneway ANOVA is categorical.
The Ftest
The basic logic of the ttest for two independent groups can be applied to the Ftest for the oneway ANOVA. The oneway ANOVA can be thought of as an extension of the ttest. In a ttest, researchers examine mean differences between the two groups. In the oneway ANOVA, researchers use an Ftest to examine whether there are mean differences among two or more groups. When conducting a ttest, researchers use a sampling distribution for the ttest to determine whether the ttest is statistically significant. Significance for the Ftest is determined by examining a sampling distribution for the Fstatistic under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true.
Figure 1. F with 3 and 96 df
For example, if you were to conduct the study described above involving the four different cultures and the IAT and had 100 total participants, the sampling distribution for the test statistic would have the distribution shown in Figure 1 to the left.
Just as with the ttest, the hypothesis test must account for a type I error (i.e., rejecting the null if the null is true). In this example, the researcher will reject the null hypothesis if the value of F based on the data (the observed value of F ) is greater than the critical value of F (2.69939) that has been determined by alpha along with the degrees of freedom for the F statistic. If alpha has been set at .05, when the observed value of F exceeds the critical value of F, the pvalue will be less than .05. With a pvalue of less than .05, researchers would reject the null hypothesis.
In Figures 2 and 3 below, note how the shape of the F distribution changes with different degrees of freedom. Use the < and > icons to navigate between the figures.
· 1
· 2
Figure 2. F with 1 and 98 df
Figure 3. F with 7 and 92 df
Also, note that alpha is only in the upper tail of the test statistic’s sampling distribution. With the ttest for two independent groups, alpha is divided in half for a twotailed test, with one half being used in the upper tail of the test statistic’s sampling distribution and the other half in the lower tail. With ANOVA, even though the alternative hypothesis does not specify a direction for the inequalities, only one tail of the F distribution is used to determine whether to reject the null.
The good news for modernday researchers is that SPSS and other statistical programs compute pvalues for the Ftest. Recall that the pvalue is the probability of obtaining a value of the test statistic that is more extreme than the observed value if the null hypothesis is true.
,
Student Name: Date:
Research Design Alignment Table  Using an alignment table can assist with ensuring the alignment of your research design.
Research Problem, Purpose, and Framework Provide one sentence for each. These must align with all rows. 
Research Question(s), Method, & Design List one or more RQs, as needed; select method; identify design. Use a separate form for additional RQs. 
Data Collection Tools & Data Sources List the instrument(s) and people, artifacts, or records that will provide the data for each RQ. 
Data Points List the variables, specific interview questions, scales, etc. that will be used for each RQ. 
Data Analysis Briefly describe the statistical or qualitative analysis that will address each RQ. 
Problem: Purpose: Framework: 
RQ1: Design: 



RQ2: Design: 




RQ3: Design: 



Note. The information in the first column must align with all rows, and each individual RQ row must show alignment across the columns for that row.
Once your Research Design Alignment Table is completed, reflect on your design alignment. Ask yourself:
1. Is there a logical progression from the research problem to the purpose of the study?
2. Does the identified framework ground the investigation into the stated problem?
3. Do the problem, purpose, and framework in the lefthand column align with the RQ(s) (all rows)?
4. Does each RQ address the problem and align with the purpose of the study?
5. Does the information across each individual row match/align with the RQ listed for that row?
· By row, will the variables listed address the RQ?
· By row, will the analysis address the RQ?
· By row, can the analysis be completed with the data points that will be collected?
,
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric's layout.
Content
Name: RSCH_8210_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
Excellent  Good  Fair  Poor  

Discussion Posting Content  Points: Points Range: 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback: 
Peer Feedback and Interaction  Points: Points Range: 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, indepth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, indepth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources. Feedback: 
Writing  Points: Points Range: 3.6 (18%) – 4 (20%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduatelevel writing style. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 3.2 (16%) – 3.5 (17.5%) Postings are mostly consistent with graduatelevel writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 2.8 (14%) – 3.1 (15.5%) Postings are somewhat below graduatelevel writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. Feedback:  Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2.7 (13.5%) ostings are well below graduatelevel writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting. Feedback: 
Show Descriptions Show Feedback
Discussion Posting Content–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail (including multiple relevant examples), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Good 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas. Fair 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Poor 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text(s) and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow, and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings. Feedback:
Peer Feedback and Interaction–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 7.2 (36%) – 8 (40%) Response posting is excellent and fully contributes to the quality of interaction by offering substantive constructive critiques, suggestions, indepth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Good 6.4 (32%) – 7.1 (35.5%) Response posting is good and partially contributes to the quality of interaction by offering adequate constructive critiques, suggestions, indepth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes that draw from the readings and other scholarly sources. Fair 5.6 (28%) – 6.3 (31.5%) Response posting is fair and partially contributes to the quality of interaction but offers insufficient constructive critiques or suggestions, shallow questions, or provides poor quality additional resources. Poor 0 (0%) – 5.5 (27.5%) Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the response posting does not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critiques, suggestions, questions, or additional resources. Feedback:
Writing–
Levels of Achievement: Excellent 3.6 (18%) – 4 (20%) Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA Style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduatelevel writing style. Good 3.2 (16%) – 3.5 (17.5%) Postings are mostly consistent with graduatelevel writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA Style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors. Fair 2.8 (14%) – 3.1 (15.5%) Postings are somewhat below graduatelevel writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting versus original writing and paraphrasing. Poor 0 (0%) – 2.7 (13.5%) ostings are well below graduatelevel writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA Style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting. Feedback:
Total Points: 20 

Name: RSCH_8210_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.
Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.