In the first part of this study, sampling experiments were used to assess the Type I error rates of the t test in situations where classes or schools were randomly assigned to groups but analyses were carried out on individual student scores. It was found that Type I error rates were grossly inflated under all conditions investigated. In the second part of the study, mathematical analysis was used to demonstrate the fact that even small amounts of between class (or school) variation can cause large inflations in the Type I error rate of the t test when analyses are incorrectly carried out on individual student scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bennett, N.Teaching styles and pupil progress. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
2.
Bossert, S. T.Review of Teaching styles and pupil progress by N. Bennett . American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 15, 160-163.
3.
Choppin, B.Review of Teaching styles and pupil progress by N. Bennett . American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 15, 158-160.
4.
Clark, W. H. and Clark, M. G.Achievement in elementary German under programmed and conventional instruction: A preliminary study. The Modern Language Journal, 1966, L, 97-100.
5.
Coulson, J. E.National evaluation of the emergency school aid act (ESEA): A review of methodological issues . Journal of Educational Statistics, 1978, 3, 1-60.
6.
Durso, M. D. and Blair, R. C.A comparative study of achievement of 393 high school students enrolled in first year Century 21 and Gregg shorthand. NABTE Review, 1978, Issue 5, 96-103.
7.
Eshleman, W. H. A comparison of programmed instruction with conventional methods for teaching two units of eighth grade science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 1967.
8.
Farrelly, T. M. Peer-group discussion as a strategy in moral education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1980.
9.
Glass, G. V. and Stanley, J. C.Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1970.
10.
Glendening, L. K. Operationally defining the assumption of independence and choosing the appropriate unit of analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977.
11.
Glendening, L. K. and Porter, A. C.Independence and selecting the appropriate unit of analysis (or the appropriate analytic model). Paper presented at the Conference on Methodology for Aggregating Data in Educational Research, Stanford, California, October, 1976.
12.
Hedges, W. D. and MacDougall, M. A.A comparison of three methods of teaching elementary school science involving programmed learning. Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Cooperative Research Project No. 1972, 1965.
13.
Peckham, P. D. , Glass, G. V. and Hopkins, K. D.The experimental unit in statistical analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 1969, 3, 337-349.
14.
Rosenshine, B. V.Review of Teaching styles and pupil progress by N. Bennett . American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 15, 163-169.
