Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 2691–2707 | Cite as

Associational versus correlational research study design and data analysis

  • Merton S. Krause
Article

Abstract

Scientific human psychology (SHP) is an international public enterprise responsible for promoting the optimization of humanity’s experienced quality of life by means of the various psychological crafts, such as parenting, teaching, supervising; winning a debate or election, achieving a good enough sale or purchase, benefitting oneself by threatening, taunting, seducing or by protecting oneself through avoiding, escaping, or counteracting threats, taunts, seduction, entrapment; meditating, praying, exercising. Etc. Optimizing their practice for achieving this requires a research methodology that most cost-effectively facilitates doing so and therefore requires centrally coordinated programmatic research devoted to fully enough dimensionally specifying each of these crafts and their effects and to validly measuring on all these dimensions. Linear model (covariational) statistics presume too much about how causes and effects are inter-related to rely on for adequately informing such research, so SHP needs a less presumptive and more data sensitive form of study design and data analysis, the associational model.

Keywords

Linear model Associational model: sufficient condition causality Psychological crafts Centrally coordinated cost-effective programmatic research 

References

  1. Alexandrova, A.: Wellbeing. In: Cartwright, N., Montuschi, E. (eds.) Philosophy of Social Science: A New Introduction, pp. 9–30. Oxford University Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  2. Balconia, M., Brusonib, S., Orsenigob, L.: In defense of the linear model: an essay. Res. Policy 39, 1–13 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, D.J., Curran, P.J.: Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: inferential and graphical techniques. Multivar. Behav. Res. 40, 373–400 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer, H.-G., Schwefel, H.-P.: Evolution strategies: a comprehensive introduction. Nat. Comput. 1, 3–52 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bollen, K.A., Pearl, J.: Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. In: Morgan, S. (ed.) Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, pp. 1–42. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  6. Borsboom, D.: Latent variable theory. Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 6, 25–53 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burian, R.M.: The dilemma of case studies resolved: the virtues of using case studies in the history and philosophy of science. Perspect. Sci. 9(4), 383–404 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J.B., Wynne, R.H.: Introduction to Remote Sensing, 5th edn. Guilford Press, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Marchi, M., Velez, C.N.: Problems in the measurement of latent variables in structural equations causal models. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 14, 183–196 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S.: Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, R.D.: Fisher lecture: dimension reduction in regression. Stat. Sci. 22, 1–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Solla Price, D.J.: Little Science, Big Science. Columbia University Press, New York (1963)Google Scholar
  13. Diener, E.: The remarkable changes in the science of subjective well-being. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8, 663–666 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Digman, J.M.: Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 41(1), 417–440 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dror, H.A., Steinberg, D.M.: Sequential experimental designs for generalized linear models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103(481), 288–298 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edwards, D.J.A., Dattilio, F.M., Bromley, D.B.: Developing evidence-based practice: the role of case-based research. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 35, 589–597 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, M.S., Orlikowski, W.J.: Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5), 1240–1253 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, R.A.: On the mathematical foundations of theoretical statistics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 222, 309–368 (1922)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fishman, D.B., Messer, S.B.: Pragmatic case studies as a source of unity in applied psychology. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17(2), 156–161 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gärdenfors, P.: Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. The MIT Press, Bradford (2000)Google Scholar
  21. Gärdenfors, P., Zenker, F.: Using conceptual spaces to model the dynamics of empirical theories. In: Olsson, E.J., Enqvist, S. (eds.) Belief Revision Meets Philosophy of Science, pp. 137–153. Springer, Berlin (2011)Google Scholar
  22. George, A.L., Bennett, A.: Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press, Boston (2005)Google Scholar
  23. Gerring, J.: The case study: what it is and what it does. In: Goodin, R.E. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, pp. 1–40. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2011) Google Scholar
  24. Gigerenzer, G., Selten, R.: Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT Press, Boston (2002)Google Scholar
  25. Hall, N.: Structural equations and causation. Philos. Stud. 132(1), 109–136 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoyle, R.H.: Path analysis and structural equation modeling with latent variables. In: Cooper, H., Camic, P.M., Long, D.L., Panter, A.T., Rindskopf, D., Sher, K.J. (eds.) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology: Research Designs, vol. 2, pp. 333–367. APA, Washington (2012)Google Scholar
  27. Jung, C.G.: Psychological Types. Routledge, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendall, M.G., Stuart, A.: The Advanced Theory of Statistics: Inference and Relationship, vol. 2. Charles Griffin, London (1966a)Google Scholar
  29. Kendall, M.G., Stuart, A.: The Advanced Theory of Statistics: Design and Analysis, and Time Series, vol. 3. Charles Griffin, London (1966b)Google Scholar
  30. Khuri, A.I., Mukherjee, B., Sinha, B.K., Ghosh, M.: Design issues for generalized linear models: a review. Stat. Sci. 21, 376–399 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, J., Seltzer, M.: Examining heterogeneity in residual variance to detect differential response to treatments. Psychol. Methods 16, 192–208 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kindler, A.: Spontaneity and improvisation in psychoanalysis. Psychoanal. Inq. 30(3), 222–234 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirsch, I., Wampold, B., Kelley, J.M.: Controlling for the placebo effect in psychotherapy: noble quest or tilting at windmills? Psychol. Conscious. Theory Res. Pract. 3, 121–131 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kline, R.B.: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  35. Kraemer, H.C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., Kupfer, D.: How do risk factors work together? Mediators, moderators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors. Am. J. Psychiatry 158(6), 848–856 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krause, M.S.: Trying to discover sufficient condition causes. Methodology 6, 59–70 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krause, M.S.: Significance testing and clinical trials. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. Train. 48, 217–222 & 234–236 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. Krause, M.S.: Measurement validity is fundamentally a matter of definition, not correlation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 16, 391–400 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krause, M.S.: The incompatibility of achieving a fully specified linear model and assuming that residual dependent-variable variance is random. Qual. Quant. 47, 3201–3204 (2013a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krause, M.S.: The data analytic implications of human psychology’s dimensions being ordinally scaled. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17, 318–325 (2013b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krause, M.S.: Valid description of experiencings and thereby of behaviors and situations. J. Conscious. Explor. Res. 7, 1–20 (2016a)Google Scholar
  42. Krause, M.S.: Case sampling for psychotherapy practice, theory, and policy guidance: qualities and quantities. Psychother. Res. 26, 530–544 (2016b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krause, M.S.: Mathematical expression and sampling issues of treatment-contrasts: beyond significance testing and meta-analysis to clinically useful research synthesis. Psychother. Res. (2016c).  https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2016.1222459 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krause, M.S.: Item response theory requires logically unjustifiable assumptions. Qual. Quant. 51, 1549–1561 (2017a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krause, M.S.: The scientific study of the qualities of individual human lives, rather than of their average quantities in aggregations of lives. Qual. Quant. (2017b).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0523-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krause, M.S., Howard, K.I.: The linear model is a very special case: exploring data for their full clinical implications. Psychother. Res. 12, 475–490 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Krause, M.S., Howard, K.I.: What random assignment does and does not do. J. Clin. Psychol. 59, 751–766 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W.: How we really ought to be comparing treatments for clinical purposes. Psychother. Theory Res. Pract. Train. 43, 359–361 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W.: Process transforms inputs to determine outcomes: therapists are responsible for managing process. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 13, 73–81 (2009a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W.: What should be used for baselines against which to compare treatments’ effectiveness. Psychother. Res. 19, 358–367 (2009b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W., Bőhnke, J.R.: The role of sampling in clinical trial design. Psychother. Res. 21, 243–251 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Langley, A.: Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24(4), 691–710 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lutz, W., et al.: Predicting change for individual psychotherapy clients on the basis of their nearest neighbors. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 73, 904–913 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MacCallum, R.C.: Working with imperfect models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 38, 113–139 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marmolejo-Ramos, F., Cousineau, D.: Perspectives on the use of null hypothesis statistical testing. Part i: the mighty frames of scientific and statistical inference. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 77(3), 471–474 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z., Hau, K.T.: Structural equation models of latent interactions: evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychol. Methods 9(3), 275–300 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McDonald, R.P.: Structural models and the art of approximation. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5, 675–686 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McGuire, W.J.: Creative hypothesis generating in psychology: some useful heuristics. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 48, 1–30 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meehl, P.E.: Appraising and amending theories: the strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychol. Inq. 1(2), 108–114 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michell, J.: Is psychometrics pathological science? Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 6, 7–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Michell, J.: The quantity/quality interchange: a blind spot on the highway of science. In: Valsiner, J., Toomela, A. (eds.) Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone Astray? pp. 45–68. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte (2010)Google Scholar
  62. Miller, F., Colloca, L., Crouch, R., Kaptchuk, T.: The Placebo: A Reader. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2013)Google Scholar
  63. Morgan, M.S.: Case studies: one observation or many? Justification or discovery? Philos. Sci. 79(5), 667–677 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mundry, R., Nunn, C.L.: Stepwise model fitting and statistical inference: turning noise into signal pollution. Am. Nat. 173, 119–123 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Nickerson, R.S.: Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol. Methods 5, 241–301 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Niiniluoto, I.: Scientific progress. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/scientific-progress (2015)
  67. Orlinsky, D.E., Rønnestad, M.H., Willutzki, U.: Fifty years of psychotherapy process-outcome research: Continuity and change. In: Lambert, M.J. (ed.) Bergin and Garfields’ Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, 5th edn, pp. 307–389. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  68. O’Rand, A.M.: The precious and the precocious: understanding cumulative disadvantage and cumulative advantage over the life course. Gerontologist 36(2), 230–238 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pearl, J.: The causal foundations of structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle, R.H. (ed.) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling, pp. 68–91. Guilford, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  70. Peña, E.A., Slate, E.H.: Global validation of linear model assumptions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 101(473), 341–354 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raykov, T., Marcoulides, G.A., Li, T.: On the fallibility of principal components in research. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 77, 165–178 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Reise, S.P., Revicki, D.A. (eds.): Handbook of Item Response Theory modeling: Applications to Typical Performance Assessment. Routledge, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  73. Roberts, S., Pashler, H.: How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychol. Rev. 107, 358–367 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rozeboom, W.W.: Some esoteric aspects of SEM that its practitioners should want to know. Multivar. Behav. Res. 44, 553–587 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Satorra, A.: Robustness issues in structural equation modeling: a review of recent developments. Qual. Quant. 24(4), 367–386 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., Jinks, C.: Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual. Quant. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E.: Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In: Harlow, L.L., Mulaik, S.A., Steiger, J.H. (eds.) What if there were no Significance Tests?, pp. 35–60. Psychology Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  78. Schwefel, H.P.P.: Evolution and Optimum Seeking: The Sixth Generation. Wiley, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  79. Sherry, A., Henson, R.K.: Conducting and interpreting canonical correlation analysis in personality research: a user-friendly primer. J. Pers. Assess. 84(1), 37–48 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Snow, R.E.: Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in psychotherapy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 59, 205–216 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stegenga, J.: Effectiveness of medical interventions. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part C Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 54, 34–44 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stegenga, J.: Measuring effectiveness. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. Part C Stud. Hist. Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 54, 62–71 (2015b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stiles, W.B.: Logical operations in theory-building case studies. Pragmat. Case Stud. Psychother. 5, Module 3, Article 2, 9–22, http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu (2009). 9 Dec 2009
  84. Stuart, E.A.: Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25, 1–21 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stuart, A., Ord, J.K., Arnold, S.: Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics: Classical Inference and the Linear Model, vol. 2a, 6th edn. Arnold, London (1999)Google Scholar
  86. Teira, D.: Debiasing methods and the acceptability of experimental outcomes. Perspect. Sci. 24, 722–743 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ullman, J.B., Bentler, P.M.: Structural equation modeling. In: Weiner, I.B. (ed.) Handbook of Psychology, vol. 2, 2nd edn, pp. 661–690. Wiley, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  88. van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., Muthén, B.: Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Front. Psychol. 4, 1–15 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. von Wright, G.H.: Causality and Determinism. Columbia University Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  90. West, S.G., Koch, T.: Restoring causal analysis to structural equation modeling: review of Judea Pearl. In: Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Structural Equation Modeling, vol. 21, 2nd edn., pp. 161–166 (2014)Google Scholar
  91. Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., MacKay, J.C., Rocchi, M.: An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 8, 52–69 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merton S. Krause
    • 1
  1. 1.EvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations