[Heartlogic-dev] Re: methodology

[William L. Jarrold]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 00:11 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > > Hrm, one email about rating comments is still pending but I think I'll
> > > respond briefly here anyway.  Actually I have a very specific proposal
> > > in mind.  I'll just spell it out.
> >
> > Okay, so below you give me an example of I guess you might call it a
> > flowchart.  Yes, interesting idea.  I suppose we could do somethign like
> > that.  The wording of some of the questions needs fixing.


<....>

So, I think we've reached more or less closure on all the issues in this 
thread.  To re-iterate, there will be a LOT more design work required
to get this in researchable shape AND they are not very AI intensive.
But, they are the kinds of things that we should be as thorough 
psychologists.  If I had my druthers I would just have us focus on
a) a simple replication of all or part of the dissertation b) testing
an incrementally enhanced AI model.

I am way much more into (b) the yet more psychology studies.  But, like I 
said, I do not want to entirely rain on your parade.   We may dilute our
efforts some, but perhaps there are enough human participants around.

Now one more tiny comment....

> > (A) Toby feels happy because he got attention from daddy.
> >
> > (B) Toby feels happy because he got a drink - the exact type of drink does
> > not matter so much to him.
> >
> > Well, I'd like to see your response to the above before I continue on with
> > the rest of these.  Some of my same comments apply.
>
> Again, I am writing short-hand where I'd actually split it into two
> separate items which are both statements.  So:
>
> Item 1: [cue here] Toby wants attention from daddy.  (Ask Likert
> believability)
>
> Item 2: [cue here] Toby is thirsty.  (Ask Likert believability)
>
> I don't see the advantage of multiple-choice format questions when we
> can do all items with Likert believability.  I expect that you will
> agree.

Well, actually as "thorough psychologists" we should test our hypotheses 
in different ways.  So a likert way is one mannner, but a multiple choice
format should also be used.  Likert scales have their drawbacks.  Multiple
choice items like the above have slightly differen drawbacks.  So, if we
use many different kinds of instruments and our hypotheses continue to be
supported, then we will have increased evidence for our theory.

On the other hand, we might not want to do multiple choice right away. 
There is a lot more thinking and research design to be done before 
deciding yes or no on multiple choice versus likert items.

Bill

> --
> If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
> (Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)