Tools for Analyzing Quantitative Data

  • Gerald A. KnezekEmail author
  • Rhonda Christensen


Data analysis tools for quantitative studies are addressed in the areas of: (a) enhancements for data acquisition, (b) simple to sophisticated analysis techniques, and (c) extended exploration of relationships in data, often with visualization of results. Examples that are interwoven with data and findings from published research studies are used to illustrate the use of the tools in the service of established research goals and objectives. The authors contend that capabilities have greatly expanded in all three areas over the past 30 years, and especially during the past two decades.


Quantitative tools Data acquisition Data analysis Data visualization 


  1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R., & O’Connor, B. (2009). Reconstructing bellour: Automating the semiotic analysis of film. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. Special Issue on Visual Representation, Search and Retrieval: Ways of Seeing, 35(5), pp. 31–40, June/July 2009. Retrieved from
  3. Becker, L. A. (1999). Calculate d and r using means and standard deviations. Online calculator. Retrieved from
  4. Bialo, E. R., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 51–57.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, D. (2005). MySQL 5.0 open source database. Techworld, November 11, 2005. Retrieved from
  7. Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality. A systematic theoretical and factual study. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Cumming, G. (2003, February). Confidence intervals: Understanding, picturing, and using interval estimates. Keynote at the Educational Research Exchange 2003. College of Education, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  10. DeVellis, R. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. *Dunn-Rankin, P. (1978). The visual characteristics of words. Scientific American, 238(1), 122–130.Google Scholar
  12. Dunn-Rankin, P. (1983). Scaling methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Dunn-Rankin, P., Knezek, G., Wallace, S., & Zhang, S. (2004). Scaling methods (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Frawley, W., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Matheus, C. (1992). Knowledge discovery in databases: An overview. AI Magazine, 13, 213–228.Google Scholar
  15. *Gibbons, J. D. (1976). Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Gibson, D. (2009). Designing a computational model of learning. In R. Ferdig (Ed.), Handbook of research on effective electronic gaming in education (Vol. 2, pp. 671–701). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez-Sanchez, J., Christopherson, R., Chavez-Echeagaray, M., Gibson, D., Atkinson, R., & Burleson, W. (2011). How to Do Multimodal Detection of Affective States? Proceedings from the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. Athens, GA.Google Scholar
  18. GraphPad Software. (2005). QuickCalcs Online Calculators for Scientists: sign and binomial test calculator. Retrieved from
  19. Ihaka, R., & Gentleman, R. (1996). R: A language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5, 299–314.Google Scholar
  20. *Joreskog, K. G., & Van Thillo, M. (1972). LISREL: A general computer program for estimating a linear structural equation system involving multiple indicators of unmeasured variables (RB-72-56). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from
  21. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2001). Evolution of an online data acquisition system. In J. Price, D. A. Willis, N. Davis, & J. Willis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE) 12th International Conference 2001, Orlando, FL (pp. 1999–2001). Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  22. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2002). Technology, pedagogy, professional development and reading achievement: KIDS project findings 2001–2002. Denton, TX: Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL).Google Scholar
  23. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008a). Effect of technology-based reading programs on first and second grade achievement. Computers in the Schools, 24(3), 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knezek, G., & Christensen, R. (2008b). The importance of information technology attitudes and competencies in primary and secondary education. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Springer International Handbooks of Education), 20, 321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knezek, G., & Miyashita, K. (1991). Computer-related attitudes of primary school students in Japan and the U.S.A. Educational Technology Research (Japan), 14, 17–23.Google Scholar
  26. Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Microsoft Research. (2010). WorldWide Telescope. Retrieved from
  28. Morales, C. (2007). Testing predictive models of technology integration in Mexico and the United States. Computers in the Schools, 24(3/4), 153, 157.Google Scholar
  29. Naik, P., Wedel, M., Bacon, L., Bodapati, A., Bradlow, E., Kamakura, W., Kreulen, J., Lenk, P., Madigan, D. M., & Montgomery, A. (2008). Challenges and opportunities in high-dimensional choice data analyses. Marketing Letters, 19, pp. 201–213. doi  10.1007/s11002-008-9036-3. Retrieved from
  30. *Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Physics Forums. (2007). Matlab vs. mathematica. (November 7, 2007 posting). Retrieved from
  32. QI Macros. (n.d). Box Plots Show Variation. Retrieved from plot2.php?gclid  =  CP2qpbOKgqgCFcZw5QodD12WrA.
  33. Roberts, J. K., & Herrington, R. (2005). Demonstration of software programs for estimating multilevel measurement models. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(3), 255–272.Google Scholar
  34. SAS. (2011). About SAS. Retrieved from
  35. Schmidt, M., & Lipson, H. (2009). Cornell Creative Machines Lab: Eureqa. Retrieved from
  36. Schulz-Zander, R., Pfeifer, M., & Voss, A. (2008). Observation measures for determining attitudes and competencies toward technology. International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Springer International Handbooks of Education), 20(4), 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scientific Software International, Inc. (2011). Retrieved April 4, 2013, from
  38. *Shumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. SPSS. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics family. Retrieved from
  40. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. The MathWorks, Inc. (2011). MATLAB. Retrieved from
  42. The R Project for Statistical Computing. (2011). About R. Retrieved from
  43. *Thompson, B. (1998). Statistical significance and effect size reporting: Portrait of a possible future. Research in the Schools, 5(2), 33–38.Google Scholar
  44. *Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). General issues in scaling. In: Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from
  45. Tyler-Wood, T. L., Ellison, A., Lim, O., & Periathiruvadi, S. (2011). Bringing up girls in science (BUGS): The effectiveness of an afterschool environmental science program for increasing female student’s interest in science careers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tyler-Wood, T., Knezek, G., Christensen, R., Morales, C., & Dunn-Rankin, P. (2005, April 13). Scaling three versions of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: Examining ceiling effects for identifying giftedness. Distinguished Paper Award for the Hawaii Educational Research Association. Presented at HERA in Hawaii in January 2005 and in the distinguished papers at the American Educational Research Association in Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  47. Vallejo, M. A., Jordan, C. M., Diaz, M. I., Comeche, M. I., & Ortega, J. (2007). Psychological assessment via the Internet: A reliability and validity study of online (vs paper-and-pencil) versions of the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) and the Symptoms Check-List-90-Revised (SCL-90-R). Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(1), e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang, G., & Wang, Y. (2009). 3DM: Domain-oriented data-driven data mining. Fundamenta Informaticae 90(2009), pp. 395–426, 395. doi  10.3233/FI-2009-0026.
  49. Wolfram Alpha. (2011). Wolfram Alpha computational knowledge engine. Retrieved from
  50. Zwilliger, D. (2003). CRC standard mathematical tables and formulae (31st ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations