Abbreviated Interrupted Time-Series - Institute for Policy Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HLM Output from Quadratic Model: Final estimation of fixed effects: Standard Approx. Fixed Effect Coefficient Error T-ratio d.f. P-value ----------------------------------------------------------- For INTRCPT1, P0 INTRCPT2, B00 158.833791 5.321806 29.846 7 0.000 For MONTHS12 slope, P1 INTRCPT2, B10 -1.773039 0.358651 -4.944 7 0.001 For MON12SQ slope, P2 INTRCPT2, B20 0.108829 0.021467 5.070 7 0.001 ----------------------------------------------------------- The outcome variable is POUNDS ----------------------------------------------------------- POUNDS ij ≈ 158.8 – 1.8(MONTHS12) + 0.1*(MON12SQ) + e ij 10
Comparing Models Stuart (1967) – Actual Data Linear Model Prediction (HLM) 215.7 226.2 196.2 203.3 POUNDS 180.5 POUNDS 176.7 157.2 157.7 134.8 -12.60 -9.30 -6.00 -2.70 0.60 MONTHS12 137.8 -12.00 -9.00 -6.00 -3.00 0 MONTHS12 Quadratic Model Prediction (HLM) 219.2 199.1 • Even graphically, the quadratic model looks to be a better fit to the original data. POUNDS 179.0 158.8 138.7 -12.00 -9.00 -6.00 -3.00 0 MONTHS12 • Patients lost weight at a faster rate at the beginning of treatment and at a slower rate towards the end of the one-year treatment.
Page 1 and 2:
Abbreviated Interrupted Time‐Seri
Page 3 and 4:
The effect can be a change in inter
Page 5 and 6:
The effect can be a change in slope
Page 7 and 8:
The effect can be delayed in time.
Page 9 and 10:
Interrupted Time Series Can Provide
Page 11 and 12:
Meeting ITS Conditions in Education
Page 13 and 14:
• O X O Theoretical Rationales fo
Page 15 and 16:
O O O X O • Initial standing asse
Page 17 and 18:
Threats to Validity: History • Wi
Page 19 and 20:
Threat to SCV • When a treatment
Page 21 and 22:
External Validity • The essence o
Page 23 and 24:
O X O O O • Now we add a comparis
Page 25 and 26:
O O O X O O O O O • Now mean diff
Page 27 and 28:
Results: Percent of Students Obtain
Page 29 and 30:
Adding a nonequivalent dependent va
Page 31 and 32:
Note that the outcome variable (ope
Page 33 and 34:
Only the targeted dependent variabl
Page 35 and 36:
Example: Evaluating No Child Left B
Page 37 and 38:
Contrast Type 1 & 2 • Contrast 1:
Page 39 and 40:
Hypothetical NCLB effects on public
Page 41 and 42:
Analytic Model • NCLB Public vs.
Page 43 and 44:
Main NAEP 4 th grade math scores by
Page 45 and 46:
Difference in differences in Total
Page 47 and 48:
Main NAEP 8 th grade math scores by
Page 49 and 50: Trend NAEP Time Series Graphs Publi
Page 51 and 52: Trend NAEP 8 th grade math scores b
Page 53 and 54: Public vs Private School Findings
Page 55 and 56: Contrast 2: Comparing States that v
Page 57 and 58: Evidence of Differing Standards Hig
Page 59 and 60: Main NAEP Time Series Graphs States
Page 61 and 62: ], ) ( ) ( ) ( [ ) _ _ ( ) _ _ ( )
Page 63 and 64: Main NAEP 4 th grade math scores by
Page 65 and 66: Difference in differences in 2009 T
Page 67 and 68: Overall Conclusions • Similar res
Page 69 and 70: Basic Insight of D & J • NCLB pas
Page 71 and 72: D & J Results: 4 th Grade Math
Page 73 and 74: Dee and Jacob Results • Similar c
Page 75 and 76: 4 th Grade Reading
Page 77 and 78: The Use of Multiple Comparison Grou
Page 79 and 80: Adding Treatment Introduction and R
Page 81 and 82: Medication decreased hyperactivity,
Page 83 and 84: Example: Chorpita • A child with
Page 85 and 86: Multiple Baselines on Different Uni
Page 88 and 89: The effects of screening for phenyl
Page 90 and 91: Multilevel Models: Current Work •
Page 92 and 93: Potential drawbacks of using HLM to
Page 94 and 95: Stuart Data Example (Stuart, 1967)
Page 96 and 97: Level 2 data: Persons Level-2 data
Page 98 and 99: HLM: Linear Model Estimates Final e
Page 102 and 103: So Simple: What Could Go Wrong? •
Page 104 and 105: Problematically • Different combi
Page 106 and 107: Do you have any examples to share w
show all

Abbreviated Interrupted Time-Series - Institute for Policy Research

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?