If you want to discuss something I feel is relevant

What? You are not my sock puppet? How else can I get my hand on this
precious study, the one that can only be gotten from Dr. Embry himself?
;-)

Doan

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Kane,

Would you mind NOT comparing me to Doan, and continually saying that
in essence I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by him. In case
you haven't noticed I am an intelligient Woman who is capable of making
her own decisions. I take about half of what Doan says and let it fly,
just like I take about half of what you say and let it fly. I am
building my own opinions from what I am learning from both of you, and
what I am reading on my own.

I have one question for you...well maybe two.

You said that for an experiment 13 is enough participants or something
to that effect.

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.


0:- Wrote:


What I found remarkable about the "workshop" format was that even
though
the parents were NOT consistently participating fully, there was
STILL,
over a six month period, a sharp reduction in street entry rates by
children even with only SOME of the methods taught to parents being
used. (Down to 10% of the rate of street entries baseline prior to
the
workshop).




Now for my second question :-)

If the parents were not consistent, and the trial was over the course
of 6months. HOW can Dr. Embry or you or anyone else say that this
experiment proved anything? Young Children mature and learn a LOT in
6months, their reduction in street entries could be from maturing and
gaining an understanding that if you run out into the street you'll
probably end up road kill. The fact that they parents were not
consistent also says to me that the results are probably not as
accurate as they could be (esp with the small sample size)

For a "good" scientific experiement you should have a control group,
Was there one? Or was this just...hey parents do this and we're gonna
see in 6months how many of your kids run into traffic.


--
beccafromlalaland

Originally Posted by 0:-

Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.

even so, I would appreciate you treating me as an individual.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?

Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?)

Originally Posted by 0:-

That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?

I have not heard or read about this experiment.

Originally Posted by 0:-

No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
example and a valid experiment.
The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
(guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects were
involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
small sample, even by Embry's standards.

and I would question it's validity, of couse "some" people in positions of power without checks and balances would abuse the power given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplied and comment further at a later time.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
years.
I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials for
validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
with terms such as "true."

I come from a background of perhaps more scientific research. Give me anything on Human communication, or Radio and Television broadcasting. Even Adversiting and Public Relations. and I know what you're talking about and what is expected in research. I don't think I said that 50 or more is required (although I may be mistaken, can't remember what I wrote) but having 50 or more trials or subjects makes the outcome of the work more....plausable (that may not be the word I want to use, I have a baby on my lap so I'm not fully engaged at the moment) And you're right the word True isn't an appropriate word. I think the word is PROVE in order to Prove the hypothesis you must have a base from which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or more trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
side.

I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one of my college Proffs :-)

Originally Posted by 0:-

By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or guaranteed
to be consistent in their actions.

and that is precisly why a larger pool of participants is needed. Because you can't count on Human's being consitant. With a larger group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protocol exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. It gives a better Idea of what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger. Having a larger participation base would help support the evidence found in this study.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Yes, that is true.

And, the sample would all age at the same rate.

they would all age at the same or near the same rate but they would not mature at the same rate nor have the same level of awareness. And I think you're forgetting a very important peice of the puzzle. Not all of the protocal would work for each family, there has to be room for error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That is why MORE participants is needed

[quote=0:-]
And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?[/quote[

sorry I did not follow this portion

Originally Posted by 0:-

What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.

well that's good at least. But again not everything in the protocal would work for all children or families. A larger sample size would be imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results.

If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture"

Originally Posted by 0:-

Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.

Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly.

Originally Posted by 0:-

That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?

I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions.

Originally Posted by 0:-

I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).

perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them.

Originally Posted by 0:-

Oh brother.

You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?

If you could see the big eye roll that i did when I read that...NO I dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was observed without using the protocal. A Control group is a group just allowed to continue on their merry way. In this such experiment that would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced acourding to the age of the subject. As I suggested earlier We don't know if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the possibility of being flattened like a pancake.



I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a copy...why don't you send me yours LOL!

I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my Alma Mater.

...

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

What I found telling was this:

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
running into the street!

Doan

Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

What I found telling was this:

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
running into the street!

The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy.

Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those
children were, many of them, products of families that had done a
previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing
the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone
else.

Learn to read. Learn to think.

However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.

Good for you.

There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
were picked.

Start your ****ing harassing again, and you get ..

It's called, diddly squat.


Doan

Kane

On 13 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

What I found telling was this:

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
running into the street!

The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy.

LOL! Are you sure?

Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those
children were, many of them, products of families that had done a
previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing
the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone
else.

Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
you:

Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
(13/130).

Are you with me so far?

Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after.
The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced
to 14%!

Learn to read. Learn to think.

I hope you take your own advice! ;-)

However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.

And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-)

Good for you.

Not good for your mom! ;-)

There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
were picked.

Start your ****ing harassing again, and you get ..

Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0? Tell me that it makes
your mom proud. ;-)

It's called, diddly squat.

Just like the size of your brain? ;-)

Doan

Doan wrote:
On 13 Feb 2006, 0:- wrote:


Doan wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:

In my research in college I was taught that 50 or more participants for
an experiment, or 50 or more trials of the same experiment to gain an
accurate picture of wether the hypothesis is true or not. 13 subjects
still seems awfully small to me, that is one of the things that is
putting me off from this. I don't feel he proved his hypothesis, I
feel he "got lucky" with the outcome.

What I found telling was this:

"Children with zero or near-zero baseline rates of entry into the street
were switched to the nonobserved participates, because little if any
experimental control over the child's behavior could be demonstrated as a
result of participation."

It very much sounded like stacking the deck in favor of the results he
wanted. BTW, the study has nothing to do with spanking your kids for
running into the street!

The effect would be the opposite, dummyboy.

LOL! Are you sure?

Children with a near zero rate would help keep the rates low. Those
children were, many of them, products of families that had done a
previous experimental study with parents already taught and practicing
the sample parenting principles. They'd have a head start on everyone
else.

Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
you:

Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
(13/130).

Are you with me so far?

Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after.

Opps! There went your example purity. Why those particular figures?

What an idiot.

The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced
to 14%!

So, you stand prepared to support the idea of contaminated samples.

You are so easy to bait it brings tears to my eyes.

You seemed completely in love with contamination by removal when a
certain female researcher stripped away the more severe spankers in her
"study."

Baumrind was a laughing stock among attendees at that conference, Doan,
just as you are here. Imagine. One is doing a study on how children
react, antisocially, to being spanked and REMOVE the group that would
in fact show that it's true they react more antisocially.

But YOU want this particular sample contaminated in YOUR favor.

You are without honor. But then we knew that all along.

The object dummy, was to run and experiment on people that had NO prior
knowledge of the methods in the training package. And NO skills of that
particular kind.

It wasn't a survey to see how many HAD certain skills or not, but to
test if those skills could be taught and applied.

You've got rotten tofu for brains.

Learn to read. Learn to think.

I hope you take your own advice! ;-)

Mmmmhhhmmmm...yep. I read your posts and watch you stupidly fall into
traps of your own making.

YOU JUST SUPPORTED CONTAMINATED SAMPLES. And I even TOLD YOU why they
could not use those children. But away you go with your bogus
manipulated formula.

Same old ****.

However, at least instead of harassment and your usual lying, you
managed to ask a valid question and present a reasonable challenge.

And instead of lying, you show your stupidity again! ;-)

R R R R....oh sure Doan. R R R ..goodun'

Good for you.

Not good for your mom! ;-)

There's your answer. Go back and read the study and how the children
were picked.

Start your ****ing harassing again, and you get ..

Oops! Resorting to adhom again, ignoranus kane0?

tit for tat. My mom taught me to give as good or better than I got.

Like the echo effect?

Tell me that it makes
your mom proud. ;-)

Can't. Have no idea.

If you lose either of your parents ask me, and I'll avoid mentioning
them to harass you.
Deal?

It's called, diddly squat.

Just like the size of your brain? ;-)

Yeah, like you caught on in time to cut off your support of
contaminated samples.


Doan

Doan the Brilliant.

0:-

Originally Posted by Doan

Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
you:

Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
(13/130).

Are you with me so far?

Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3 after.
The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only reduced
to 14%!

Hey look at that...Doan proved something. :-) Good for you :-)

Now Kane...I know not all of us are number people (I can barely balance my checkbook) but surely you could have figured this one out.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:
[color=blue]

0:- Wrote:

Some of your responses have influenced my opinion.


even so, I would appreciate you treating me as an individual.


0:- Wrote:


Is that based on a critical analysis, or simply a pie division?


Simple pie division of course (can you see the sarcasm dripping?)




0:- Wrote:

That depends on the nature of the experiment. Very valid experiments
have worked with about that number. Remember the infamous, but
significant experiment in applied psychology that showed that those in
a position of power, such as prison guards will in fact abuse that
power, and will follow orders to do immoral and unethical things?

I have not heard or read about this experiment.

0:- Wrote:

No such experiment is possible now because it was so abusive and
ethical boundaries disappeared so fast, but it stands as a powerful
example and a valid experiment.
The experiment lasted only 6 days....the participants went 'bad'
(guards) so rapidly...and it had to be cancelled. Only 24 subjects
were
involved. And only half, randomly chosen, were guards. That's a pretty
small sample, even by Embry's standards.

and I would question it's validity, of couse "some" people in
positions of power without checks and balances would abuse the power
given them...but certainly not all. I'll read the webpage you supplied
and comment further at a later time.




0:- Wrote:


Really? Yet I have seen the same results on a practical basis for many
years.
I've never heard, by the way, of requirement for 50 or more trials
for
validation. Nor have I heard scientific experimentation referred to
with terms such as "true."

I come from a background of perhaps more scientific research. Give me
anything on Human communication, or Radio and Television broadcasting.
Even Adversiting and Public Relations. and I know what you're talking
about and what is expected in research. I don't think I said that 50
or more is required (although I may be mistaken, can't remember what I
wrote) but having 50 or more trials or subjects makes the outcome of
the work more....plausable (that may not be the word I want to use, I
have a baby on my lap so I'm not fully engaged at the moment) And
you're right the word True isn't an appropriate word. I think the word
is PROVE in order to Prove the hypothesis you must have a base from
which to build your research. A broad base (more subjects, or more
trials) builds a strong foundation to build from there.

0:- Wrote:

Have you any references for a standard of 50 subjects with 50 or more
trials? That's extraordinary in social science research. No quoted
studies in this ng have ever come from such methodology, from either
side.

I do not have a reference for that. Unless you want to talk to one of
my college Proffs :-)






0:- Wrote:

By looking at the results. Human subjects are not consistent in
anything much. In fact even in materials testing the samples are not
totally consistent with each other. You are setting impossible
criteria. No group can be gathered that can be controlled or
guaranteed
to be consistent in their actions.

and that is precisly why a larger pool of participants is needed.
Because you can't count on Human's being consitant. With a larger
group of participants you can weed out those who followed the protocol
exactly, somewhat, mostly, or not at all. It gives a better Idea of
what works what doesn't. And makes the research results stronger.
Having a larger participation base would help support the evidence
found in this study.



0:- Wrote:

Yes, that is true.

And, the sample would all age at the same rate. they would all age at the same or near the same rate but they would not
mature at the same rate nor have the same level of awareness. And I
think you're forgetting a very important peice of the puzzle. Not all
of the protocal would work for each family, there has to be room for
error. There is little room for that in a small sample size. That is
why MORE participants is needed

0:- Wrote:

And measuring the children who recieved one level of the product
against other children how did not and the outcomes would be
significant. Possibly we should wait until you have a copy?[

sorry I did not follow this portion

[quote=0:-
What I saw was that those children whose parents were somewhat
consistent in delivery of the instruction had similar outcomes....a
reduction to 10% of the street entries prior to the program. A few did
not, and those were where the mother did not use, or did not correctly
apply the program.

well that's good at least. But again not everything in the protocal
would work for all children or families. A larger sample size would be
imperitive to "truly" see accurate numbers. For this group...Yippe, but
that doesn't mean that everyone will have the same results.

If you are going to use this study as a jumping off point to "no
spanking" you have to fill in the blanks...unfortunatly I don't feel
this does a good job of giving a peek at the "big picture"

0:- Wrote:

Please explain how one would create an experiment where the observers
did not have an untoward influence on the subjects yet could maintain
consistency of reactions and actions by the subjects.

Of course that's not possible in such a small sample size. But in a
LARGER base group the % of error could be reduced greatly.

0:- Wrote:

That's not possible. This, becca, is the typical response I see from
Doan all the time. Can you see why I said you seem to be like him?

I'm sorry you don't like answering my honest questions.

0:- Wrote:

I believe it was he who once submitted the commentary of a medical
doctor about Straus' et al study on CP, insisting it was not valid
because it did not follow the rigorous discipline of health
experiments
(and Straus' study was NOT even an experiment, simply an observational
survey).


perhaps it was a mistake, you seem to make quite a few of them.


0:- Wrote:

Oh brother.

You mean a group that in fact were allowed to go into traffic?


If you could see the big eye roll that i did when I read that...NO I
dont' mean allowing toddler to go into traffic. I mean a group that was
observed without using the protocal. A Control group is a group just
allowed to continue on their merry way. In this such experiment that
would allow the researcher to see if the number of street entries reduced
acourding to the age of the subject. As I suggested earlier We don't know
if the protocal really worked or if the kids became more aware of the
possibility of being flattened like a pancake.



I suppose if I am going to discuss this with you I'll need to get a
copy...why don't you send me yours LOL!
[/color]
And have you sneak a copy of this precious study to me? ;-)

Doan

I do have access to a University Library, I live about 5miles from my
Alma Mater.


--
beccafromlalaland

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, beccafromlalaland wrote:


Doan Wrote:
Are you this stupid? DO THE MATH, ignoranus kane0! Here, let me show
you:

Let say the 13 children were averaging 10 entries per hour before and
1 entry per hour after. Thus, the rate of entries is reduced to 10%
(13/130).

Are you with me so far?

Now, add in the 20 children with, say 0.4 entries before and 0.3
after.
The before average is now 130 + 20(0.4) or 138/33 =~ 4.2 and the after
avererage is 13 + 20(0.3) or 19/33 =~ .58. The rate is now only
reduced
to 14%!



Hey look at that...Doan proved something. :-) Good for you :-)

Now Kane...I know not all of us are number people (I can barely balance
my checkbook) but surely you could have figured this one out.

He is not only STUPID but also an ASS-HOLE! Thus, the term ignoranus
kane0 fit him PERFECTLY! ;-)

Doan