基于两水平回归模型的调节效应分析及其效应量

使用多元回归法进行调节效应分析在社科领域已常有应用。简述了目前多元回归法的调节效应分析存在的不足,包括人为变换检验模型、自变量和调节变量区分不足、误差方差齐性的假设难以满足、调节效应量指标ΔR²没有直接测量调节变量对自变量与因变量关系的调节程度。比较好的方法是用两水平回归模型进行调节效应分析并使用相应的效应量指标。在介绍新方法和新效应量后,总结出一套调节效应的分析流程,通过一个例子来演示如何用Mplus软件进行两水平回归模型的调节效应及其效应量分析。最后讨论了两水平回归模型的调节效应分析的发展,包括稳健的调节效应分析、潜变量的调节效应分析、有调节的中介效应分析和有中介的调节效应分析等。     

与零假设检验有关的统计分析流程

人们熟知的零假设显著性检验,受到一次次质疑与辩护,地位并未动摇,报告检验结果仍然是统计分析的习惯做法。不过,其局限性促使研究者探寻更多的统计方法如区间估计、效应量分析、检验力分析等。本文先介绍假设检验与置信区间的关系;然后讨论检验力与两类错误率和效应量的关系;最后在理顺上述统计方法的基础上,提供一个可操作的统计分析流程。     

基于多元回归的调节效应分析

在心理学和其他社科研究领域,大量实证研究建立调节模型,以分析自变量对因变量关系的影响机制,但在基于多元回归的调节效应分析实践中仍存在不足。我们回顾了均值中心化在基于多元回归的调节效应分析中的作用,均值中心化不影响乘积项(即调节效应)的检验,仅对一阶项(即主效应)的检验有影响。讨论了简单斜率的检验方法,建议在调节变量为连续变量时,使用Johnson-Neyman法进行简单斜率检验;在调节变量为类别变量或研究者对某个调节变量值感兴趣时,使用选点法。并用一个实际例子演示如何进行调节效应分析。随后展望了调节效应检验的拓展方向。     

《心理统计学》教学内容的新探索

本文在对当前国内外主要心理统计学教材进行比较的基础上,指出与上个世纪八十年代的心理统计学教材内容相比较,在内容上的新探索主要体现在（1）由“假设检验”的内容中发展出“统计检验力”和“效果大小”的统计指标和估计方法;（2）引进一般线性模型来统合方差分析和回归分析这两种统计方法;（3）适度增加一些“多元统计分析”的内容等三个方面.本文对前两个方面的新内容作了简要评述,并对教材内容的编排方面提出了新的思路.     

The value of RCT evidence depends on the quality of statistical analysis

The authors examined statistical practices in 193 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapies published in prominent psychology and psychiatry journals during 1999-2003. Statistical significance tests were used in 99% of RCTs, 84% discussed clinical significance, but only 46% considered-even minimally-statistical power, 31% interpreted effect size and only 2% interpreted confidence intervals. In a second study, 42 respondents to an email survey of the authors of RCTs analyzed in the first study indicated they consider it very important to know the magnitude and clinical importance of the effect, in addition to whether a treatment effect exists. The present authors conclude that published RCTs focus on statistical significance tests ("Is there an effect or difference?"), and neglect other important questions: "How large is the effect?" and "Is the effect clinically important?" They advocate improved statistical reporting of RCTs especially by reporting and interpreting clinical significance, effect sizes and confidence intervals.     

Sample size requirements for estimating pearson, kendall and spearman correlations

Interval estimates of the Pearson, Kendall tau-a and Spearman correlations are reviewed and an improved standard error for the Spearman correlation is proposed. The sample size required to yield a confidence interval having the desired width is examined. A two-stage approximation to the sample size requirement is shown to give accurate results.     

从效应量应有的性质看中介效应量的合理性

效应量的作用有两个方面, 一是弥补了统计检验的不足, 二是使得效应有可比性。结合统计显著性和效应量, 才能得出适当的统计结论。效应量应当具有一些基本性质, 包括与测量单位无关、单调性、不受样本容量的影响。国际上流行的中介效应量κ平方就是因为缺乏单调性而引发质疑和研究, 从而被彻底终结了其作为中介效应量的合法性。R平方型中介效应量同样有缺乏单调性的问题。文末讨论了如何报告中介效应量以及有待研究的问题。     

Evidence for a confidence–accuracy relationship in memory for same- and cross-race faces

Discrimination accuracy is usually higher for same- than for cross-race faces, a phenomenon known as the cross-race effect (CRE). According to prior research, the CRE occurs because memories for same- and cross-race faces rely on qualitatively different processes. However, according to a continuous dual-process model of recognition memory, memories that rely on qualitatively different processes do not differ in recognition accuracy when confidence is equated. Thus, although there are differences in overall same- and cross-race discrimination accuracy, confidence-specific accuracy (i.e., recognition accuracy at a particular level of confidence) may not differ. We analysed datasets from four recognition memory studies on same- and cross-race faces to test this hypothesis. Confidence ratings reliably predicted recognition accuracy when performance was above chance levels (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) but not when performance was at chance levels (Experiment 4). Furthermore, at each level of confidence, confidence-specific accuracy for same- and cross-race faces did not significantly differ when overall performance was above chance levels (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) but significantly differed when overall performance was at chance levels (Experiment 4). Thus, under certain conditions, high-confidence same-race and cross-race identifications may be equally reliable.     

Properties of the maximum likelihood solution in factor analysis regression

Algebraic properties of the normal theory maximum likelihood solution in factor analysis regression are investigated. Two commonly employed measures of the within sample predictive accuracy of the factor analysis regression function are considered: the variance of the regression residuals and the squared correlation coefficient between the criterion variable and the regression function. It is shown that this within sample residual variance and within sample squared correlation may be obtained directly from the factor loading and unique variance estimates, without use of the original observations or the sample covariance matrix.