| second mtg | third mtg | fourth mtg | fifth mtg | sixth mtg | seventh mtg | eighth mtg | ninth mtg | tenth mtg | eleventh | twelfth | thirteenth | fourteenth |fifteenth meeting and end of semester wrap up |
Present: Dr. Ryan, Meghan Reino, Joe Cipko
Meghan will keep a log, and begin working on the Human Subjects Protections Training. I sent an email to Rick Miller requesting that she be added to the Ryan Lab Group folder.
Joe Cipko also stopped in. We need to re-run PR1 and collect gender info, as well as get PR2 face to face coded to see if it is consistent with the web based version.
Elizabeth Gardner stopped in the office on Wed. 12-14-05 to inquire about joining the group.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Mary Finn, Laura Kise
They are working on a pilot study for CP3 in which they are just having the subjects try to do the 9 test problems. They were using a 3 minute time limit condition and an unlimited time condition. They are finding that some subjects finish in an average time of only around 2 minutes. But some subjects in the timed condition are just giving up early and waiting out the time (this is less of a problem in the untimed condition).
One problem is that they were not checking whether a subject who "finished" a problem in the untimed condition (where they recorded the time and were finding the approximately 2 minute average) was actually correct, and therefore really finished. If the subject thought they were finished but were not correct, they really should be encouraged to keep going to find out what amount of time it took them to actually get the problem correct. If we did that in the untimed condition, however, some subjects might not be able to come up with a correct solution for an unreasonably long amount of time.
Therefore, we decided that we will use a 3 minute and a 5 minute time limit condition. In addition, in those conditions it will be important to actually check if a subject who thinks they are finished is actually correct. If so, then the time can be recorded and they can move to the next problem. If not, then they must be encouraged to keep trying. But they will only have to keep trying for at most 5 minutes.
We should also ask them to tell us what they think they were supposed to do to try to solve the problems. This may show us that there is some common misconception that interferes with their ability to get a correct answer in those cases where they can't get one.
We would not be able, in the real CP3, to use a time of any more than 5 minutes per problem, because there are 9 problems. I doubt that very many subject who could not get the problem correct in 3 minutes would be able to in 5. But that is what we will be checking with this new procedure. We may find that we could shorten the time to 2 minutes. Using such a time limit might provide a good measure of whether subjects really understand any given problem.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins, Chris O'Donnell
Checking on the CP3 training materials.
MF-ANAL/ANAL - Script almost finished. Worked examples, and guided practice (No unguided practice problems yet). Just need preliminary/ending instructions.
MF-ANAL/MA - Script about halfway finished. Worked examples done. Still writing guided practice. (No unguided practice problems yet). We worked out the difficulty of how to explain in the script how to MF with ANAL and MA. However, the problem arises again for the subject materials, which Chris is working on. Wes and I worked out how to present the "bold faced type" matchings in the subjects' materials. First, the working out of the MA problem will be shown as two steps. Step 1: Add the two percents. Step 2: Multiply the price of the single item by the total of the two percents. Then the price of the one item in the MA will be matched to the total price of the two items in the ANAL. The total of the two percents from the MA will be matched to the final percent (the unknown) in the ANAL. The amount saved on the two discounts from the MA will be matched to the total amount saved on the two items in the ANAL. If the subjects need further explanation of why those are the matchings, the verbal explanation will try not to go beyond what was said in the script.
FC (free comparison) - ANAL/ANAL - Bob Campomizzi is adapting the MF scripts as Wes gets them done.
FC - ANAL/MA - same as above
We can't be any further ahead on FC than on MF.
Other research assistants have been assigned to this project: Laura Kise, Mary Finn, and I think Joe Cipko and Alyssa Rizzo.
We will shoot for a time when as many as possible can meet with me, Wes, and Chris. So far the best times will be next week either Tuesday 11 - 12, or Fri 10 - 11. I'll contact as many of the others as possible and see what we can work out.
| back to top | next |
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wes, Chris, Laura, Mary, Alyssa
We discovered some changes that need to be made to the MF- ANAL/ANAL script. Basically, we have to make sure that whatever problem is being used for "First Pair - A" in the script, is also being used as "First Pair-A" in the subject material. And whatever is being used as "First Pair-B" in the script, is also being used as "First Pair-B" in the subject materials. And so on, throughout the Worked Examples. So Wesley (who is working on the script) and Chris (who is working on the subject materials) will get that worked out.
First Pair A is the suit and shoes problem, and First Pair B is the Bill and Hillary problem. Both are find final.
Since Robert Campomizzi is adapting the MF scripts to make them FC scripts, I need to check if he needs to make the same changes in your scripts. I will try to meet with him sometime soon. Also, I need to find out if Robert is just working on the scripts, or working on both the scripts and the subject material. I sent him an email about those issues.
As many of this crew as possible will meet the same time next week.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Meghan Reino
Meghan could start by working on running subjects in the PR1 study collecting gender data. The next thing she needs to learn about is the subject pool.
I added Meghan as a researcher on PR1, but PR1 is not visible to subjects yet. I also asked her to email Joe and Alyssa to see if they could show her how to run PR1 (and collect gender data). She can begin posting sign ups as soon as the classes for the subject pool are added she knows how to run the study.
Alyssa stoped in to see what needed to be done to help with the EPA fear and disgust poster. She will check into a high resolution digital camera to take a picture of the insect poster.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Kelsey Kowalski
Kelsey has been working on the Pilot study. She will begin creating sign ups as soon as possible.
She will also contact Wesley to begin helping with CP3. She took notes on the basics of CP2, DS2, and the four conditions in CP3.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins, Chris O'Donnell, and Robert Campomizzi.
The group met in the conference room. Chris still needs to make some small edits to the subject materials. Wes made sure he knew what they are, since he had to leave the previous meeting to get to class. Robert will take the Free Comparison instructions from CP2 and adapt them to CP3. He has a copy of the CP2 instructions. He will edit them to refer to the A and B problems of CP3, not the "Target" and "Comparison" problems of CP2. He knows to insert them into the FC script where the Matching Features instructions occurred. Chris will remove any bold faced type (illustrations of the Feature Matching) from the subject materials for the FC condition materials.
| previous | back to top | next |
Present: No one attended. Need to start running subjects in PR1 and a new version of Local/Global with better viewing conditions. Also need to hear back regarding number of credits being required.
Present: No one attended.
Nicole Yeager stopped in at one point to check on how to get going on coding more of the Local/Global data.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins, Chris O'Donnell
We checked the MF-ANAL/ANAL and MF-ANAL/MA scripts and subject materials up through the Worked Examples. We saw that on the subject materials we needed to move the ship problem in where there was an airplane problem in order for the subject materials and the script to match. So we did that right in the meeting.
We also found a few very small edits which I marked on the hard copies. We decided that we will leave the line in the subjects' worked examples where it shows to multiply a proportion time 100 to change it to a percent, because that is what was done in the ds02 study.
Next we need to finish up the guided practice part of the scripts and subject materials, for MF-ANAL/ANAL and MF-ANAL/MA.
We also need to have someone develop more unguided practice problems. We have a lot from DS02, but they need to be changed to all find final, they have to have the right surface features (discounts and distances), and we need to have MA problems.
Then, we can move on to all the same stuff for the FC-ANAL/ANAL and FC-ANAL/MA scripts and subject materials.
| previous | back to top | next |
Present: Dr. Ryan, Meghan Reino
Meghan is working with Joe and Alyssa on PR1 with gender info. She has been shown what she needs in order to run a session with them for training. Joe and Alyssa are creating time slots for next week. Meghan will run with them and then begin creating her own time slots.
Present: No one attended.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins, Bob Campomizzi, Chris O'Donnell, and new Lindsey McMenamin
Bob brought in an edit of FC - Anal/Anal Script. We worked on marking it up, and Bob will edit further and email me the next draft ASAP.
Chris made the small edits to the subject materials that we talked about last time. The latest versions of the materials are in the Ryan Lab group folder.
For the special CP3 meeting at 11:00 am on Tues. the 14th, we will continue looking at the FC script, etc. Wes may not be able to make that meeting, but we can still have the meeting with the other members of the team.
I showed Lindsey McMenamin around the lab group web site and gave her the usual starting instructions. I have not yet entered her into the database, etc.
| previous | back to top | next |
Hello Ryan Lab Group, I've done a little organizational work that I need to share with you. I'm also trying to move my projects ahead and make some future plans. First, I've made separate mailing lists for those of you who are currently working on one of my projects. You'll notice that I have re-organized a little so that those of you who are on a project are on only one. If you are not on one of these lists and want to become active on a project, please stop in at a meeting or email me to let me know. Here are my current lists: PR - the Picture Rating study Joe Cipko Kaitlin Fleming Meghan Reino Alyssa Rizzo The Local/Global study Morgan Becker Jessica Bergmaier Kelly Breeze Krysta Murray Nicole Yeager CP3 - developing materials and running subjects in the pilot study Robert Campomizzi Mary Finn Wesley Hopkins Laura Kise Kelsey Kowalski Andrew Malkeiwicz Jackie Maniet Lindsey McMinamen Chris O'Donnell We have completed four of the fifteen weeks of this semester. So by the end of the next week we are through the first third of it. So far, the PR1 study with gender information is now running, but no others. We are making progress on developing CP3, and there is progress on developing posters from the data both from the Local/Global study and from the PR1 study. Also, there will be a paper on the data from PR2. Now we need to start making more progress on the other studies. Here is what we need to do: Local/Global - We need to discuss what change we could make that would result in higher performance in the control condition on the perpetrator present line up. Then we need to start signing up and running subjects again. Picture Rating - I believe I am still waiting for the data from the face to face version of PR2. We need to continue gathering data from PR1 with gender. Comparing Problems - I believe I am still waiting for more subjects to be run in the pilot study (using 5 min. and 3 min.). There needs to be sign ups created and subjects run. I also need to see the data that we have collected so far. Of course, we need to continue developing CP3 so that we can start running as soon as possible. So let me know if I am correct about where we are. Also, I noticed that over the past two weeks no one has attended the Tuesday or Wednesday lab meetings, although some people have dropped in at other times. So please either come to one of the meetings next week and let's get going on these projects, or check in with me at some other time or by email. If you wish to be removed from this overall mailing list, let me know. At the end of this semester, those of you who have not been attending meetings or contacting me will automatically be removed unless you ask me not to. Thanks, and hope to hear from you soon. -- Dr. Ryan
Laura Kise has found that she can access the Lab Group folder, but she gets a permission denied message when she tries to open some files. We also saw the same thing happen to Chris, with some files but not others. I emailed Rick Miller. He said that some file permissions had been inadvertently changed due to being copied to other computers (to be worked on) and then returned to the folder. He said he has reset all the permissions now and to let him know if it happens again.
We are at the point with the CP3 materials where it is easier to talk about what remains to be done than what is completed. Here is what we need:
Regarding the test materials: All that remains is to put the basketball problem, with the appropriate values, into the test keys. The tests themselves (both the subject versions with one problem per page and our version with all the problems on only two pages) are ready to go.
Regarding scripts: Both MF scripts are done. For the FC scripts, I checked Bob Campomizzi's edit of page 5, made the last necessary changes, and sent it back to him. He now will finish any other changes necessary on them (such as removing references to bold faced type).
The subject materials for the worked examples, and guided practice are all done. We still need more problems for unguided practice.
When the above changes are done, we should be done with developing materials for CP3.
Regarding the Pilot experiment for CP3:
The Pilot experiment crew (Laura Kise, Jackie Maniet, and Mary Finn) will begin creating time slots and running subjects using the 3 minute versus 5 minute timing. They have not yet coded the data from the subjects they ran at 5 minutes versus untimed. They were waiting to receive Wes's method of partial credit scoring from CP1. I found the scoring key and emailed it to them.
Also, the Pilot experiment crew will get a price for 6 cheap calculators and I will give them the money to buy them.
Present: No one attended
Present: Dr. Ryan, Jackie Maniet, Megan Gaittens (new)
Jackie is ready to start creating time-slots for the Pilot study. She says the last changes on the pre and post test answer keys have probably been made.
I got Megan Gaittens started. Showed her the lab group web site, the three things to do to get started, and showed her the subject pool web site. I also gave her a brief explanation of CP3.
I also gave Megan and Jackie copies of Ryan (2005), the first dissertation experiment.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wes, Chris, Lindsey McMenamin
We checked where we are with materials for CP3 so far. The main things we still need are: the FC scripts and a set of unguided practice problems.
For unguided practice problems, we will need probably no more than 8 pairs of each type. For ANAL/ANAL, one member will be a sales find final ratio, and the other will be a distance find final ratio. For ANAL/MA, the second member of the pair must be a sales mere appearance problem.
I will need to check whether the maximum number of problems done in previous DS experiments was 8 problems or 8 pairs (I think it was pairs). I also need to consider how the task from which I got my measurement is related to the tasks in CP3. This is necessary in order to judge for sure how many pairs will be needed in unguided practice for CP3.
See Tues. 3/7/06.
Spent a few minutes describing the 2 by 2 structure of CP3 for Lindsey.
So we need to get the details from the Tim Perfect paper and ask him for advice on replicating. Kelly will get the paper:
Author(s): Perfect, Timothy J., Department of Psychology, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom, tperfect@plymouth.ac.uk Address: Perfect, Timothy J., Department of Psychology, University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, United Kingdom, tperfect@plymouth.ac.uk Source: Psychological Reports, Vol 93(2), Oct 2003. pp. 393-394. Publisher: US: Psychological Reports Publisher URL: http://www.ammonsscientific.com/ ISSN: 0033-2941 (Print) Language: English Keywords: local processing bias; lineup performance; witnesses; perpetrator Abstract: Evidence suggests that lineup performance by witnesses can be influenced by inducing a prior local or global processing bias. In this study, 90 witnesses attempted to identify a perpetrator from a lineup. Prior to the lineup, 30 participants completed a global processing task followed by a local processing task; 30 did the same tasks in reverse order; and 30 acted as controls. Analysis indicated that the last task completed influenced subsequent lineup performance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)(journal abstract)
| previous | back to top | next |
No meeting. Following the Monday schedule.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Megan Gaittens, Laura Kise
I checked and found that Megan Gaittens, Meghan Reino, and Lindsey McMenamin have all been given permission to access the Ryan Lab Group folder.
Megan Gaittens turned in her certificate for the Human Participant Protections training.
Laura was planning on coding data from the Pilot study and wanted to know whether it should be coded directly into an Excel file on the Ryan Lab Group folder. I re-organized the folders for the Pilot study, creating the usual Results folder. Laura will code the data right into an Excel file there. She will create a code sheet and put it into the materials folder. Megan will work with her to learn more about the algebra problems.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins,
First, I gave Wes the info about Pychology department awards. He asked about doing a research proposal for the Keller-Sharp Research Fund award. He has an idea for a study about an anchoring and adjustment effect using musical tones with different timbres (harmonic proportions). He will check for more info about the award at the Psych dept. office.
Wes and Chris have divided up the problem pairs from DS2 to start converting them to unguided practice pairs for CP3. Chris has already made up 7 MA problems, just needs one more, which will be easy. They will work on converting the mixture problems to sales.
Just need to finish the unguided problems and check on Bob's progress on the FC scripts. Then we should be able to create sign ups.
We will edit out of the scripts the verbal debriefing (just give a written) and the references to waivers for SAT scores (we won't be collecting them), and references to the vocabulary test.
We still need a debriefing.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Lindsey McMenamin, Travis Barron (new), Mary Kay Finn, Wesley Hopkins
Entered Travis' info into the database. Gave him the quick tour of the Lab Group web site.
The CP3 crew has made progress on the unguided practice problems. I checked the 8 MA sales problems. Chris made 2 sales find final problems out of the mixture problems. Wes made 3 sales problems and 1 investment problem from the mixture problems. Wes will make one more and Chris 2 more sales problems. Wes will keep the investment problem in case it can be used for a transfer test.
Still need to hear back from Robert on the FC scripts. I showed Mary Kay what needs to be done on the FC script using the one I had edited earlier. It still needs a good bit of work. However, there is no use having Mary start working on it until I find out what Robert has done.
Finally, I gave Lindsey M. and Travis a short explanation of CP3 and drew up the procedure as a simplified diagram.
Present: No one attended.
Present: No one attended.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Chris O'Donnell
Chris had made the two more sales problems and put them in the Ryan Lab Group folder. We checked them, and did a little editing. They are now finished. Wes still needs to change the "musicians royalties" problem to a discount problem, rather than an interest problem. Chris will also arrange the sales and distance problems in the subject's materials into pairs with one sales followed by one distance and number them similar to how they were numbered in DS2. He will also arrange the subject's materials for the unguided practice problems for the ANAL-MA conditions.
The subject's materials for the unguided practice will consist of 8 pairs of problems. But there will be two sets of those materials, one for ANAL\ANAL subjects, and one for ANAL\MA subjects (regardless of whether they are MF or FC). Each pair will be one sales and one distance. For the MF ANAL\ANAL, and the FC ANAL\ANAL, the sales will be a find final ratio, and the distance will also be a find final ratio. For the MF ANAL\MA, and the FC ANAL\MA, the sales will be a find final ratio, and the distance will also be an add ratios and find amount saved (i.e., an MA problem).
I found that Robert had put the FC ANAL\ANAL script in the Ryan Lab Group folder, but in a place where I had not expected to find it. He also emailed it to me for my approval. I took the emailed version, marked the edits it needs, and put it in the Ryan Lab group folder, in the CP3 training materials folder. I will try emailing it back to Robert and see if he can get it finished up. If there is a problem, then I'll ask Wes to see what he can do about getting it finished.
Over the weekend I checked on the number of problems completed in the unguided practice of previous experiments. It was in DS1 that I had determined that. I found the answer in the Ryan and Schooler - Manuscript in preparation - 6/30/00, on page 15. It was 3 to 8 problem pairs, with a median of 4. The ms says 3 to 8 problems, but I know it should say problem pairs. That is because the reason for checking, as noted in the ms, was that it was necessary for the subjects to encounter at least 3 problem pairs in the unguided practice in order to insure that they encountered both types of pairs. The 3 to 8 problem pairs with a median of 4 was across the Judge Similarity Condition and the two control conditions. Therefore, there should certainly not be any problem of our subjects in CP3, who will be Matching Features or Free Comparing with the pairs, needing more than 8 pairs. If anything, the problem will be for them to get enough practice, given the time constraints of the experiment.
Present: No one attended.
Present: Dr. Ryan, Laura Kise, Jackie Maniet
Laura and Jackie explained that in the unlimited time condition in the Pilot study for CP3, subjects seemed uncomfortable about being timed. They seemed to feel pressured to finish. Also, because they were run in the presence of other subjects, they seemed to feel pressured to take no longer than whatever subject finished first. Laura and Jackie noted that subjects generally finished within three minutes.
The main purpose of the Pilot study is to determine whether the two tests are equivalent in difficulty. Secondarily, we want to know if three minutes will be a reasonable time limit. In spite of the fact that subjects may feel pressured to finish in some cases, if that occurs in a balanced fashion for subjects in the Test A and Test B conditions, then we can still make the comparison we need to make. Furthermore, all indications are that three minutes will be a good time limit to use (It is what was used in the dissertation studies. Furthermore, in CP3, two thirds, rather than half, of the test problems will be of the easier variety).
To check on the balance issue, I asked them to check on how many subjects were run in each condition of the Pilot study. What they brought me is now entered into an Excel file at Ryan Lab Group/2005 -2006/Pilot of test materials/materials/condition breakdown.xls. It shows that the conditions are well balanced enough to make the comparison.
No meeting. Schedule conflict.
| previous | back to top | next |
Present: No one attended, as far as I remember. (If anyone did stop in during the week, please remind me of what notes need to be added here)
Present: No one attended, as far as I remember. (If anyone did stop in during the week, please remind me of what notes need to be added here)
Present: Dr. Ryan, Wesley Hopkins, Chris O'Donnell
Chris reported that he has finished the MA problems for the unguided practice. I checked them and did some minor editing on both the ANAL/ANAL and the ANAL/MA unguided practice problems to make the wording consistent throughout.
I explained to Wes and Chris that I have just recently analyzed the "Use of situation model" data from DS1. It provided a potential explanation for the result in DS1 that was reported in Ryan 2005 (the Cog Tech, Judging Similarity paper). The "Procedure Use" and "Equation Use" data were reported in the Cog Tech paper, but the "Procedure Use" data does not look consistent with the posttest problem performance. The "Equation Use" data barely looks consistent, and not statistically significantly so. The "Situation Model Use" data, on the other hand, does look consistent with the posttest problem performance, but I have just analyzed it. Therefore, it does not appear in the Cog Tech paper.
Therefore, in the CP3 study, which is based partly on the dissertation studies, it will be important to code the pretest and posttest performance in terms of not only accuracy, but also the use of the three strategies (procedure, equation, and situation model).
I made sure that Wes and Chris know where to get the information about the psych department awards. I advised them to check the qualifications for the awards and be thinking about positioning themselves to be competitive for one of the awards.
Wes said he was anxious to begin running subjects. I explained that he should check up on the FC scripts. If we can get all the scripts, subject materials, training materials, etc. ready to go soon, then we can have a meeting where we do a dry run of the study. Then once we feel we have worked out any kinks in the materials we can begin signing up some subjects, at least as pilot subjects to train on the procedure.
Additionally, I emailed the rest of the Local/Global crew to find a time to meet next week. We need to also decide on a lab study that they can begin working on.
Finally, it may be possible to run a simultaneous/sequential manipulation, or some other manipulation, as a web based study.
| previous | back to top | next |
Present:
Kelly may be transferring to Berkeley. Jessica and Morgan Becker (with whom I'll meet Friday) are graduating in May. Therefore, I'll try to get other research assistants working with them to carry this on, if necessary, in subsequent semesters. Krysta Murray (with whom I'll meet Thursday) may be not graduating until later. I'll check.
Kelly has 4 digital photos. We will try running the simultaneous/sequential manipulation crossed with Local/Global, which will mean that we need 4 groups.
We will need to print out the line-ups, the navon letters, as well as other materials. We should write up a script that documents the procedure. For example, how soon after the encounter should the subject do the Navon task. Kelly will start working on that also.
Jessica will also make up a line up set for herself. Both Kelly and Jessica are willing to get the materials together and then run the study at a mall. They might be able to get enough subjects before the end of the semester to look at the data. By having multiple "stooges" with corresponding line-ups, it will be possible to switch off doing the tasks. That will also add to the generalizability of the findings.
I will contact Tim Perfect to ask him for the instructions for running a sequential line-up. The reason he suggested this manipulation is because he said some of his students have tried and failed to replicate the original effect with sequential line ups, but he suspects that their procedures may have been the problem. He said he would provide the instructions if I decide to go this route. I'll also ask him again for copies of his papers so that we get as much detail as possible on all of his procedures.
Megan and the others are working on scoring the pilot data. I checked to see whether the slightly different procedures that were run were balanced between the A and B test well enough to compare the tests. It turns out that they are. So Megan, Laura Kise, and Jackie Maniet will continue the scoring, including doing reliability checks. As soon as they have enough coded, they will send it to me as an Excel file so I can start analyzing.
We also discussed how the timing was working out. They say that 5 minutes is way too long. So they will now run some subjects at 2 minutes timed in both the A and B test until they have a balance of the longer timings and the 2 minute timing. As long as some subjects can finish some problems within 2 minutes, then we may use 2 minutes as our time. This will save a total of 18 minutes on the CP3 study, which will be quite long. Once we start running subjects in CP3 we can get an even better idea if 2 minutes is ok, assuming we go that way.
Present:
| previous | back to top | next |
Present:
Present:
Present:
| previous | back to top | next |
No meeting. Doctor's appointment.
No meeting. Spring Recess.
| previous | back to top | next |
Present: No meeting
Present: No meeting
Present: No meeting
| previous | back to top | next |
Present: No meeting
Present: Dr. Ryan, Jackie Maniet, Megan Gaittens, and Stephanie Tetley
They finished scoring the Pilot study data. There were only 11 each in TestA and TestB because of poor show up of subjects. Nevertheless, we checked it and found no significant difference in performance between the two tests.
Present: No meeting
| previous | back to top |
Present: No meeting
Present: No meeting
Present: No meeting
The CP3 crew has done two things. First, we have run a pilot test of Test A and Test B. The data show no difference in difficulty between the two tests. Also, the pilot study established that 2 minutes is sufficient time to test for ability to solve the test problems. Second, the rest of the materials for CP3 have been developed. We have run 3 pilot subjects in order to check the other materials.
The running of 3 pilot subjects in CP3 uncovered a few changes that needed to be made in the materials. The needed changes were all noted in the comment section of the log.
Also, it became apparent that test B had a discrepancy between the scoring key and the test. The fourth problem had .25 as the final ratio, but the scoring key said .20. Upon checking, I found that using .25 results in a correct answer for the initial ratio that contains many decimal places. Perhaps that is why it was changed to .20 in the scoring key. However, because the first initial ratio was also .20, that led to the correct answer being .20 as well. In other words, it was no longer a weighted averaging problem. I rewrote the problem and put the corrected problem in the tests (ours and theirs) and in the scoring key.
I also noticed that the scoring key was set up differently for Test B from Test A. I asked Wes to go through the Test B scoring key and make it like Test A.
Congratulations are in order for both Joe and Alyssa. Joe has been accepted at West Chester University in their M.A. in Clinical Psychology program. Alyssa has accepted a position at Kids Peace.
Joe will continue his involvement over the summer by learning to analyze the data from the 50 subjects.
Kelly Breeze, Bevin Lustman, and Jessica Bergmaier are continuing to work on the new live interaction version in which the manipulation will be simultaneous vs sequential lineup. They have developed a script and a test set. These have been checked out by Tim Perfect who has made some suggestions for modifications.