A prospectus for instructional research on visual literacy

ECTJ ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-36
Author(s):  
W. Howard Levie

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Sherwin
Keyword(s):  


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-110
Author(s):  
Irina Valentinovna Kulamikhina ◽  
◽  
Zhanbota Baurzhanovna Esmurzaeva ◽  
Maxim Leonidovich Marus ◽  
Polina Vladimirovna Zakotnova ◽  
...  


Author(s):  
Oksana Duchak

AbstractIn the 21





1996 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Linton
Keyword(s):  


Author(s):  
Carmen Köhler ◽  
Johannes Hartig ◽  
Alexander Naumann

AbstractThe article focuses on estimating effects in nonrandomized studies with two outcome measurement occasions and one predictor variable. Given such a design, the analysis approach can be to include the measurement at the previous time point as a predictor in the regression model (ANCOVA), or to predict the change-score of the outcome variable (CHANGE). Researchers demonstrated that both approaches can result in different conclusions regarding the reported effect. Current recommendations on when to apply which approach are, in part, contradictory. In addition, they lack direct reference to the educational and instructional research contexts, since they do not consider latent variable models in which variables are measured without measurement error. This contribution assists researchers in making decisions regarding their analysis model. Using an underlying hypothetical data-generating model, we identify for which kind of data-generating scenario (i.e., under which assumptions) the defined true effect equals the estimated regression coefficients of the ANCOVA and the CHANGE approach. We give empirical examples from instructional research and discuss which approach is more appropriate, respectively.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document