- 47
- 281 231
Sprightly Pedagogue
United States
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 22 พ.ย. 2016
Welcome to my channel. I am dedicated to providing free, high quality educational resources to students on issues related to research methods, statistics, the philosophy of science.
While all these videos are produced for free consumption, donations can help the channel to produce high quality content. Please click here if you're able to make a small donation:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=DQVHYD3L44F94&item_name=Sprightly+Pedagogue+Educational+Resources¤cy_code=USD&source=url
While all these videos are produced for free consumption, donations can help the channel to produce high quality content. Please click here if you're able to make a small donation:
www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=DQVHYD3L44F94&item_name=Sprightly+Pedagogue+Educational+Resources¤cy_code=USD&source=url
Which statistical test should I use?
We cannot and do not cover all tests in this video, just some common ones that are used frequently. If you your situation falls outside of these examples, do not try to force your situation to match one of these. Instead, checkout the links below to get a better idea for how to proceed.
www.statsflowchart.co.uk/
www.statisticssolutions.com/how-to-select-the-appropriate-statistical-analysis/
statistics.laerd.com/features-selecting-tests.php
Special thank you,a gain, to Tilottama Roy-White for her assistance with this video.
www.statsflowchart.co.uk/
www.statisticssolutions.com/how-to-select-the-appropriate-statistical-analysis/
statistics.laerd.com/features-selecting-tests.php
Special thank you,a gain, to Tilottama Roy-White for her assistance with this video.
มุมมอง: 722
วีดีโอ
Thinking about Probability
มุมมอง 4516 ปีที่แล้ว
We gloss over several topics that have considerable depth to them. This is meant to be an introduction for how to think about these things, not a detailed analysis of each probability type. This is a complicated topic. We're just giving an overview.
Diagramming Models
มุมมอง 1266 ปีที่แล้ว
This is my recommended diagramming system. Please note, this is for communicating the idea behind your model, not the exact specifics. So, I take some shortcuts. Listing latent variables in boxes rather than circles, for example, is inconsistent with typical diagramming in CFA/SEM. Still, this is easier for students to grasp and most situations won't require that nuance. If they do, use CFA dia...
Writing a Results Section
มุมมอง 1.1K6 ปีที่แล้ว
I hesitated to even make this video because the individual statistical tests substantially change the nature of the reporting you'll need to do. I make many assumptions about your knowledge base in this video and I apologize for that. Still, I think having the rough outline will provide some limited guidance.
Test Retest Reliability, Maturation, and Carryover Effects
มุมมอง 11K6 ปีที่แล้ว
Test Retest Reliability, Maturation, and Carryover Effects
Classical Test Theory and Operationalization
มุมมอง 7K6 ปีที่แล้ว
Be ready to pause! This video has a ton of information in it. I know you can't read all the text in real time, but if you want the additional information, rewatch and pause frequently.
Reliability and Validity Introduction and Statement of the Problem
มุมมอง 7636 ปีที่แล้ว
Reliability and Validity Introduction and Statement of the Problem
What is a commentary or letter to the editor?
มุมมอง 4806 ปีที่แล้ว
What is a commentary or letter to the editor?
What is a Theoretical Proposition Paper?
มุมมอง 1.8K6 ปีที่แล้ว
What is a Theoretical Proposition Paper?
Types of Publications - Introduction to the Series
มุมมอง 8316 ปีที่แล้ว
Types of Publications - Introduction to the Series
Using Google Scholar Part 3 Finding Recent Research
มุมมอง 1616 ปีที่แล้ว
Using Google Scholar Part 3 Finding Recent Research
Using Google Scholar Part 2: What To Click On
มุมมอง 1646 ปีที่แล้ว
Using Google Scholar Part 2: What To Click On
How to Write the Introduction to an Empirical Research Paper
มุมมอง 4.6K6 ปีที่แล้ว
How to Write the Introduction to an Empirical Research Paper
Kuhn Cycle (Animation only, links to explanations inside)
มุมมอง 9566 ปีที่แล้ว
Kuhn Cycle (Animation only, links to explanations inside)
My idiot flat earther coworker thinks "scientists dont even know what gravity is because its a theory..which is just a guess" ...all of these ppl say the SAME EXACT THING. Its really sad. They think theyre so witty and use all this "gotcha" bs arguments...but in reality they are so dumb they dont even realize how dumb they truly are.
"Thanks for the explanation. I am a little bit confused about FWER. For example, my research question is: 'Does the medication have an effect on diabetes patients?' I have one independent variable: Group (Diabetes patients and Control) and four dependent variables: Blood Sugar Levels, Hemoglobin A1c Levels, Insulin Sensitivity, and BMI. 1. If I perform 4 t-tests with these dependent variables, will the Type 1 error rate increase? 2. If I would like to compare clinical features between Diabetes vs. Control (Gender, Age, Educational Level, etc.), will the FWER further increase?"
thanks so much for this content! I also watched your null-hypothesis significance testing video and it gave me a good general starting idea of what it is
Notes: 4:57 “It isn’t their well validatedness that makes them a theory, it’s their validatedness that makes me believe their theory.”
হালা দুর
❤
this is actually so helpful!!
the background sound is very disturbing
Empirical studies
🧚🏻♂️☯️💒🗽🌏🦅🌌🕵🏻🤗
Very well explained.. under which playlist can i find more videos on CTT ?
Thanks for this video - it's a really great and simple overview of the topic!
If u bet your life, against God's Truth, you'll meet him today. U are either stupid or a liar. Pick one coz U can't Be Both
4/8/24 is the next solar eclipse. It's a biblical one. Last Warning from the God Who made Earth Flat. It's a warning to America
Looking forward to it!
Excellent summary! I like it!
Thank you very much for this. This video just explained what I was struggling to understand for a while. Thank you again!
Anyone know how to cite this video in APA format?
I'd use something like: Sprightly Pedagogue (2018). Kuhn's cycle: Paradigms and Criticism. Retrieved from: th-cam.com/video/Yn8cCDtVd5w/w-d-xo.html . 05/18/2023
The background music is much too loud, cheesy and distracting. I want to hear the instructions and the see the person speaking. No thank you to elevator and "on hold" audio content.
I'm so sorry some of the first free educational videos I posted for no gain or compensation weren't up to your standard. I'll work on being retrospectively perfect.
Hi mga taga BSU ALANGILAN sa may exam ngayon sa sts
great explanation.
It’s Newtons theory of gravity 4:56
Einstein's gravitational theory is newer and more accurate. Newton's really only works on earth.
Well done Aryiah.thanks.
Great video, thanks!!
straight to the point ❤️
theory is just a better guess with more information, but can still be wrong at times. Theory is not an absolute.
I might encourage taking another look at the video. We specifically attack the framing of theory as guess.
@@SprightlyPedagogueIs an educated guess more accurate?
Its not a guess....did u even watch the video? Just out of curiousity ...are u a flat earther?
Thank you so much for this video. Must have taken a lot of work and the explanations are clear and understandable.
Seventh
Mesej yang jelas, struktur yang jelas, mudah difahami, terima kasih
This is aspirational work. Great stuff!
Thanks
Have you ever seen an ANOVA test show significance but then none of the pairwise tests show significance?
Yes. It's annoying. But possible. Usually you're dealing with low effect size. Or low power.
Other than the microphone sounding a bit cheap this is an amazing video! Thanks so much for the concise thoughts and insights.
It was replaced for the newer videos!
I am really confused. Why would you consider rolling dices as well as flipping a coin as non independent events? This is what they teach you in probability classes with the Bernoulli distribution. I don't get why they would be dependent events. I would really appreciate if you elaborated on that.
When you're thinking about independent or non-independent events, you're really talking about the possibility of a specific outcome occurring in a one-off event. If I draw marbles from a bag, what result will I get? The answer depends on what marbles are in the bag. The multiple comparisons problem comes into play only when you keep looking for that single specific outcome but you keep drawing many times. It's the repeated drawing, rolling, and flipping that causes the problem. So each dice roll is independent from each other dice roll. But, YOU keep looking for a four to be rolled. You are not dependent or independent. You're just trying to game the system and get a result you prefer.
Impressed! I am entering the dissertation phase for my second doctorate, and this is the best and simplest explanation I have discovered. In fact, I have written H1-H3 (etc) many times, but this has raised my level of confidence in those figures. Thank you.
Would this not lead to logical inconsistencies? Such as if a high fat diet causes higher hepatic triglycerides compared to a low fat diet, why should anything change just because we also measured body weight and blood glucose? Surely measuring additional variables did not change the biological relevance of hepatic triglyceride levels? To me, I am having trouble seeing the justification for using multiple testing correction.
Great question! The data doesn't change and the actual reality of the true relationships between the variables doesn't change. But, we don't have an exact measurement of these variables. From classical test theory each datum is made up of some proportion of 'true score' and some 'error'. If you look at enough error, you'll eventually see patterns in it. The more you torture your data, the more likely you are to accidentally see patterns in error and misinterpret it as meaning something that it doesn't.
Recommend checking out the book The Signal and the Noise.
Finally, I got to understand it, thanks to this video. Thanks for sharing.
Mesej yang jelas, struktur yang jelas, mudah difahami, terima kasih
Great video 💪🏾
amazing work fr
so because scientific approach is biased towards disbelief, the default is always the null of any hypothesis, the assumption of indifference/ ineffectiveness/ lack of relationship between variables , until evidence rejects or fails to reject the null hypothesis. "the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty"
This video broke down the concept so well.
Great video! Thumbs up👍
Thanks for this simple explainer. Hope you will be back making these simple explainer videos.
Thanks for the encouragement! It's sure tough to get to them. Not really any monetary incentive unfortunately. I'd love to do something more in the future, but don't have nearly as much time for the hobby as I used to. I really appreciate the appreciation though! I hope I can find some time soon/eventually.
@@SprightlyPedagogue Thanks for the reply. I understand your point. Won't mind your explanations in form of blogposts as well. Your lucid explanation in one of the replies to illustrate the difference between Fischerian and Bayesian Statistics was also a joy to read. Glad to come across your channel. Wishing you the best in your future endeavors.
Amazing intutive explanation. Thank you !
Character In the video It's great, I like it a lot $$
so touching for an excellent video
But what if the scientific method an sich needs to find what’s within its borders, then scientism, naturalism and reductionism always must be true. At least scientism and naturalism. I think that there could be predictions possible, even evidence that could direct beyond the realm of the scientific method and scientism. Not as a God of the gaps - argument or evolution of the gaps- argument, but pre assumptions that could be inherent to our nature, but even have epistemological implications which validates or invalidates phenomena an sich and in principle might stop following evidence, because of the bounds that inherent to our or a nature as an entity.
The sentence did explain why the ad hoc is the theory you just using more words to explain what was briefly mentioned and extending it by adding unnecessary altercations
I read this to a colleague. They said: 'that sentence makes no sense. Alterations might make sense. Altercations are fights. ... Along with several other issues with that sentence.
@@SprightlyPedagogue which one of the sentences that don't make sense is it the one with the dog which was a ad hoc or my comment and if I use the word argument instead of altercation will that clarify your confusion
Please start with punctuation so I can get a sense of what you're trying to say. None of this makes sense. Also, 'the ad hoc is the theory' reads like nonsense. You might as well have said, 'the chicken is the seven'
@@SprightlyPedagogue my bad on that see my hand are big and I have a bad habit of not reading over whst I text and this phone is garbage the keypad is very small and the predictability is not that accurate so I will rewrite
😊👍
For me the exemple with the dice is wrong. You don't reroll the same dice every time when you make multiple comparaison. You roll several dice in parallel and see the result. So i don't understand the problem when you make multiple comparaison to differents groups... If you throw 6 dices on the same time, your probability to have "1" is 1/6 no???
edit: your example sucks
Those dice rolls are independent of one another, so they are functionally the same statistical statement.
Rerolling the same die six times and recording the results is no different from rolling six dice and recording the results. In both cases each roll has a probability to result in a 1 of 1/6. The problem of multiple comparisons arises when (implicitly or explicitly) a conclusion about a more general hypothesis is drawn from a number of tests. A "more general hypothesis" could mean a hypothesis like "there are differences between groups somewhere" in a case with more than 2 groups. With every additional group the number of (possible) group comparisons increases. Since each comparison has a chance of resulting in a false rejection of the null hypothesis multiple group comparisons result in an increase of chance to falsely reject the null hypothesis of that "more general hypothesis" (that there are differences somewhere). The type I error rate of such a "more general hypothesis" is sometimes called the family-wise error rate. The more comparisons you look at the higher the chance that you end up with at least one significant comparison just by chance (as a result of random sampling) even though there are no differences in the population. That said, I don't like the analogy of the kid that is rerolling the dice for this either. The kid rolls the dice again if (and only if) it does not like the first result. It does that until it likes the result and then uses that. An equivalent to this exists in data analysis: An analysts performs additional tests until they find one that is significant and then report that one (it is like making up new hypotheses on the go). This behavior is problematic as it leads to spurious results that are essentially worthless. However, this does not describe the problem of multiple comparisons. This behavior is known as fishing (for effects) in the literature. The analogy with the kid that is rerolling the dice suggests that adjusting for multiple comparisons solves the problem of fishing, which it does not. The analogy also suggests that the problem with multiple comparisons only exists when one makes up new hypotheses on the go. This is not the case either. For me the analogy of the kid rerolling the dice is a great analogy for fishing. But aside from the fact that both cases involve multiple comparisons, the multiple comparisons problem that one tries to resolve via a p-value adjustment is independent from fishing. Do you agree?