MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008061019 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.1.p021

Contextualizing Statistical Suppression Within Pretest-Posttest Designs

2020· article· en· W3008061019 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyInclusion (mineral)Regression analysisRegression toward the meanClinical psychologyLongitudinal studyResearch designStatisticsSocial psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical suppression occurs when adjusting for some third variable enhances or substantially modifies the association between an initial predictor and an outcome. Although many methodologists have discussed this phenomenon, very little work has examined suppression in longitudinal regression models such as the pretest-posttest design. This research addressed this gap with two separate studies. Study One was a literature review that reviewed 80 articles from a variety of fields within psychology. Study Two was an analysis of a large longitudinal clinical dataset via 925 statistical models. Both studies revealed consistent results: in approximately 20% of instances, suppression effects were observed and were attributable to the inclusion of a pretest measure. Results underscore that controlling for pretest measures when assessing change may be of value, as this can help clarify the associations between predictors and posttest outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.615
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.046 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it