1991
DOI: 10.1080/02732173.1991.9981960
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining change using regression analysis: Three approaches compared

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
77
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(78 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
77
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, we sought to identify predictive relationships between the changes in technology integration self-efficacy and the changes in intentions. According to Dalecki and Willits (1991), studying change (i.e., difference) scores is a viable way to assess the impact of varying events on a desired outcome. In the current study, if a significant predictive relationship was found between changes in self-efficacy and changes in intentions, that could build a case for continued research into using authentic learning exercises to improve preservice teachers' self-efficacy.…”
Section: Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also, we sought to identify predictive relationships between the changes in technology integration self-efficacy and the changes in intentions. According to Dalecki and Willits (1991), studying change (i.e., difference) scores is a viable way to assess the impact of varying events on a desired outcome. In the current study, if a significant predictive relationship was found between changes in self-efficacy and changes in intentions, that could build a case for continued research into using authentic learning exercises to improve preservice teachers' self-efficacy.…”
Section: Purposementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Change in technology integration self-efficacy was measured as change in perceived technological knowledge (TK), pedagogical knowledge (PK), pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), and technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) from pre-to postassessment, as were changes in intentions. Again, the value in studying change (i.e., difference) scores is to assess the impact of events on a desired outcome (Dalecki & Willits, 1991). In the current study, we sought to find a positive relationship between improved technology integration self-efficacy and changes in intentions to integrate technology.…”
Section: Relationship Between Change In Technology Integration Self-ementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, T 1 and T 2 indicators were computed as a daily average in order to standardize the differences across the T 1 reporting interval (past 30 days) and the T 2 reporting interval (number of days since arrival at the SB site). We conducted a set of ordinary least square (OLS) regression analyses to identify potential predictors of risk behaviors during T 2 (as outlined by Allison (1990) and Dalecki and Willits (1991)). For this set of analyses, the average daily occurrence of risk behaviors among each respondent during T 2 was the dependent variable while controlling for: (1) the average number of days since the respondent had arrived at the SB site (as a measure of opportunity to participate in risk behaviors) and (2) the average daily occurrence of risk behaviors among each respondent during T 1 .…”
Section: Analytic Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using a change score as a dependent variable in regression models has generated some debate (Allison 1990;Bohrnstedt 1969;Cronbach & Furby 1970;Dalecki & Willits 1991;Kessler 1977). Econometricians argue that raw change scores (i.e., T 2 )T 1 ) are insufficient because of their low reliability and correlation to T 1 , and they propose using either residualized change score models or not using change scores at all (Bohrnstedt 1969;Cronbach & Furby 1970;Kessler 1977).…”
Section: Analysis and Strategymentioning
confidence: 99%