Print

Print


Hi: Just following up on my earlier email, I wanted folks to be sure to have seen the details of the Portfolio 2 assignment.

Here is what the portfolio document says, from https://ufl.instructure.com/courses/359562/assignments/3677933. I actually spent a lot of time writing all the parts of that, in ridiculous detail, so I hope it can answer most of your structural questions

There is also a sample paper https://ufl.instructure.com/courses/359562/files/40721755/download?wrap=1

[cid:[log in to unmask]]



--

Michael Marsiske, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Clinical and Health Psychology
PO Box 100165,
1225 Center Drive, Rm. 3150
Gainesville, FL  32610-0165
Phone:  (352) 273-5097
Fax: (801) 720-5897
Email: [log in to unmask]

Twitter: @MMarsiske

From: Hatchel,Tyler J <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:09 AM
To: Michael Marsiske <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Portfolio 2


Dr. Marsiske,



I am a bit confused by this. The syllabus suggests that the analyses we utilize is up to us.



I already started working on mine a few days ago using GMM. I decided to utilize this method since I am not especially well versed and it suited the data well. Part of the appeal of the course was that the structure would enable me to produce publishable work. I don't really have data for a decent survival analysis.



Also, just to clarify, this portfolio will include two analyses? That also does not appear to be in the syllabus, but is something I am totally fine with of course.



Sorry to ask you to compromise again..... would it be reasonable if I did a SEM and a GMM given how things are depicted in the syllabus?



Best regards and thanks for your time,



--

Tyler Hatchel, MA

Counseling Psychology Doctoral Candidate

Researcher & Instructor

University of Florida

________________________________
From: Applied Multivariate Methods in Psychology <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Michael Marsiske <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 6:44:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [CLP7934-L] Portfolio 2


I've had a few questions, so I wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of the some of the following:



  1.  The first half of portfolio 2 has to be a SEM. It is not uncommon for students to use the same lit review, and to run the same MLM analysis from Portfolio 1 as a SEM. You're welcome to innovate (e.g., try out a higher order growth model or a growth pattern mixture model), but it's fine to redo your portfolio one analyses as a SEM
  2.  The second half of the portfolio has to be a survival analysis. If you can find or create a variable in your data set, it's fine to do that. For example, one student is analyzing 10 sessions of test scores. For the survival analysis they will define a criterion score (e.g., a score of 10), and the survival analysis will look at the hazard/survival of achieving a score of 10 (At each occasion 0 = not achieving a 10; 1 = have achieved a 10, and are excluded from subsequent occasions). The critical thing with doing that is that you have to pick a criterion THAT NO ONE HAS MET AT BASELINE (or you'll be forced to exclude participants who have met it), but that at least some people (IDEALLY 50%, but beggars can't be choosers) have met before the study is over.



THAT SAID:  Sometimes, you just can't make the same data set work for part1 and part2. It's totally fine if the two halves are utterly disconnected. The goal of this paper is demonstrate technical competence in data that are at least somewhat meaningful to you.



Michael



--



Michael Marsiske, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Clinical and Health Psychology

PO Box 100165,

1225 Center Drive, Rm. 3150

Gainesville, FL  32610-0165

Phone:  (352) 273-5097

Fax: (801) 720-5897

Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>



Twitter: @MMarsiske