1980
DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1980.tb01225.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Denoting the Base‐free Measure of Change

Abstract: Bond criticized the base‐free measure of change proposed by Tucker, Damarin, and Messick by pointing to an incorrect derivation which is here viewed instead as a correct derivation entailing an inadequately specified tacit assumption. Bond's revision leads to estimates of the correlation between initial position and change which are negatively biased by correlated errors, whereas the original approach, with the tacit assumption properly denoted, leads to unbiased values.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1982
1982
1993
1993

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In investigations of change, an estimate of p (l $ is a useful and important sup-plement to the information provided by the measure of individual change. 7 Recently, Messick (1981) and Tucker (1979) have properly focused their mathematical analyses on p{,p rather than p XlD . A thoughtful empirical investigation of the correlation between change and initial status is the analysis of intellectual growth in Thorndike (1966).…”
Section: Correlation Between Change and Initial Statusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In investigations of change, an estimate of p (l $ is a useful and important sup-plement to the information provided by the measure of individual change. 7 Recently, Messick (1981) and Tucker (1979) have properly focused their mathematical analyses on p{,p rather than p XlD . A thoughtful empirical investigation of the correlation between change and initial status is the analysis of intellectual growth in Thorndike (1966).…”
Section: Correlation Between Change and Initial Statusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This attention has been mostly negative and has focused primarily on two issues: (a) the reliability (or unreliability) of the difference score and its inverse relationship to the correlation between X 2 and X 1 and (b) the correlation between the difference score and initial status ( X 1 ) and its implications for using the difference score to study correlates of change. To resolve these problems a number of alternatives to the difference score have been recommended, including the base free measure of change (Tucker, Damarin, & Messick, 1966; Messick, 1981), the residualized change score (Webster & Bereiter, 1963), and Lord’s (1956) regression-based estimate of true change. Zimmerman and Williams (1982b) have provided a recent comparison of several alternatives.…”
Section: Two Perspectives On Quantitative Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, although either method can be used with more than two waves of data, these methods yield different results and differ in their assumptions. In general, the MANOVA assumptions are considered to be most plausible (O'Brien 61Kaiser, 1985).ANALYSIS OF CHANGE…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%