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 OpenAlexaff
Linda Farmus, Jonathan A. Weiss, Diana Tajik‐Parvinchi, Robert A. Cribbie

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.266
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.558
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2660.558
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207