多组比较等效检验的应用:置信区间方法的论证。

Q2 Social Sciences Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation Pub Date : 2011-04-01 DOI:10.7275/D5WF-5P77
Shayna A. Rusticus, C. Lovato
{"title":"多组比较等效检验的应用:置信区间方法的论证。","authors":"Shayna A. Rusticus, C. Lovato","doi":"10.7275/D5WF-5P77","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Assessing the comparability of different groups is an issue facing many researchers and evaluators in a variety of settings. Commonly, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is incorrectly used to demonstrate comparability when a non-significant result is found. This is problematic because a failure to find a difference between groups is not equivalent to showing that the groups are comparable. This paper provides a comparison of the confidence interval approach to equivalency testing and the more traditional analysis of variance (ANOVA) method using both continuous and rating scale data from three geographically separate medical education teaching sites. Equivalency testing is recommended as a better alternative to demonstrating comparability through its examination of whether mean differences between two groups are small enough that these differences can be considered practically unimportant and thus, the groups can be treated as equivalent.","PeriodicalId":20361,"journal":{"name":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying Tests of Equivalence for Multiple Group Comparisons: Demonstration of the Confidence Interval Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Shayna A. Rusticus, C. Lovato\",\"doi\":\"10.7275/D5WF-5P77\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Assessing the comparability of different groups is an issue facing many researchers and evaluators in a variety of settings. Commonly, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is incorrectly used to demonstrate comparability when a non-significant result is found. This is problematic because a failure to find a difference between groups is not equivalent to showing that the groups are comparable. This paper provides a comparison of the confidence interval approach to equivalency testing and the more traditional analysis of variance (ANOVA) method using both continuous and rating scale data from three geographically separate medical education teaching sites. Equivalency testing is recommended as a better alternative to demonstrating comparability through its examination of whether mean differences between two groups are small enough that these differences can be considered practically unimportant and thus, the groups can be treated as equivalent.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7275/D5WF-5P77\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7275/D5WF-5P77","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

摘要

评估不同群体的可比性是许多研究人员和评估人员在各种情况下面临的问题。通常,当发现非显著结果时,错误地使用零假设显著性检验(NHST)来证明可比性。这是有问题的,因为找不到组之间的差异并不等于表明组之间具有可比性。本文利用三个地理位置不同的医学教育教学点的连续和评定量表数据,对等效检验的置信区间方法和更传统的方差分析(ANOVA)方法进行了比较。通过检验两组之间的平均差异是否足够小,以至于这些差异实际上可以被认为不重要,因此两组可以被视为等效,等效性检验被推荐为证明可比性的更好替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applying Tests of Equivalence for Multiple Group Comparisons: Demonstration of the Confidence Interval Approach.
Assessing the comparability of different groups is an issue facing many researchers and evaluators in a variety of settings. Commonly, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is incorrectly used to demonstrate comparability when a non-significant result is found. This is problematic because a failure to find a difference between groups is not equivalent to showing that the groups are comparable. This paper provides a comparison of the confidence interval approach to equivalency testing and the more traditional analysis of variance (ANOVA) method using both continuous and rating scale data from three geographically separate medical education teaching sites. Equivalency testing is recommended as a better alternative to demonstrating comparability through its examination of whether mean differences between two groups are small enough that these differences can be considered practically unimportant and thus, the groups can be treated as equivalent.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Feedback is a gift: Do Video-enhanced rubrics result in providing better peer feedback than textual rubrics? Do Loss Aversion and the Ownership Effect Bias Content Validation Procedures Flipping the Feedback: Formative Assessment in a Flipped Freshman Circuits Class Eight issues to consider when developing animated videos for the assessment of complex constructs Variability In The Accuracy Of Self-Assessments Among Low, Moderate, And High Performing Students In University Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1