Click for next page ( 76


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 75
75 TABLE 1 Meta-Analysis of Expectancy Mediation EXPECTANCY - BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR - OUTCOME Effect 8ESD Effect BESD Variable Size (r) From % To ~ Size (r) From Z To % Accepts ideas .28 36% 64% -- am_ ___ Asks questions .17 41% 59: .24 382 62: Correc Live feedback .24 38% 62: ~ Distance .20 40Z 60% .45 28: 72% Encourages .09 46X 54% .41 30% 70: Eye contact .11 44% 56% .32 34: 66% Gestures -.04 52% 48% .31 35: 66% Input .26 37% 63% .33 33% 67: Interaction duration .17 41% 59% .46 27: 73% Interaction frequency .21 40% 60% .21 39% 61% Negative climate .29 36: 64% .36 32% 68Z Nods .20 40: 60Z - --- --- Off-task behavior .19 40: 60% .43 29% 71% Positive climate .21 39% 61% .40 30: 70% Praise .12 44: 56X .12 44% 56: Smiles .12 44% 56% .29 351 65: Speech rate .04 48% 52% .48 26% 74Z Wait time --- --- --- .18 41% 59% NOTE: A positive ef feet size means that the result was in the predicted direction (more positive behaviors shown toward high expectancy students). Table adapted from Harris & Rosenthal (1985~.

OCR for page 75
m 5 o A: X Or 5 P ~ :, 0 ~ cn A. . to N _ P. (D CD P. It ~ 5 P. 0 ~ 0 :' of Y. 3 ~ as 0 B ~ A. 9: 5 Pa rt 0 N ED - '0q P ~ 0q P to - . D r ~3 . ( Io cn . . en 0 {D ~ {D B ~ or ~ ~ X ~ . far o Ah 0 5 ~ ~ ~ 5 As ~ P u, ~ P 0 m B let 5 ~ It) o ED In ~- N tD O ~ O - ~ _ `0 ~ :~ ~ ~ C _ _ ~ rt 5 ~D 1 1 _ - _ co _ _ u, 1, o 0 ~. s 3 ' p ~D r' N i' ~- ~r P. ~- N 1~ 11 . . ~ O ~ ~ ~ cr~ ~n ~ O O O X & B ~: ~ ~c ~ ~ 0 O - ~& ta) X ~r rt - e ~ - . 0 5 0 ~w rt ~ B5 - - - ~n~ ~ ~ _ cs~ ~ ~, ~ e S 0 0 oo o c - p x o C) C~ P ^ _ P - - ~ ~ p c~ ~ - tn 5 e cn . ~ . ~ _ C tn a, ~ 5 e ~ 1 ~s ~D O ~ ~ O _ ~n o 0 ~__ _ _ 1tz ~: 0 0 0 0 oo ~ ~ cn ~ r o rt o c p u, cn :- :e oo r r ~ ~ ~3 P, 00 0 0 - - ~ CX} _ ~ 5 ~ ~- #0 B & 0 ~ C "s ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~D (D ~ X ~ 5 9, P ~ ,~. 0 ~ 0 ~ P 0 oo ~s ~: ~ P ~ ~ {D e ~ c P . ~ ~r 0 ~r 0 - e - . - . - O ~ O ,t O O P ~S . ~ P ~ X 0q - o 0 0q 0 o W ~ _~ t.~~ O~ ~ 0` _ O m~ ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ 0O ~ C~ ~ ~n _l ~ CO _ CX) ~n ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~3 D p :- 0 0 - - oo ~ 0 ~ a tD c a, o C~ . x w tn X B :, C P "s P ~ (D t P w ~ P 0

OCR for page 75
77 TABLE 3 Stem-and-Leaf Plot and Statistical Sugary of Ganzfeld Studies Employing Criterion of Direct Hits Cohen' ~ h S_ Leaf Sugary Statistics 1.4 4 . Maximum 1.44 1.3 3 Quartile (Q ~ .42 1.2 Median 3 (i] ~ .32 1.1 Quartile1 (Q11 .08 1 . 0 Min imum - . 93 9 Q ~ Q .34 .8 ~3: [.~5(Q3 ~ Q1) .26 .7 3 S .45 .6 Mean . 28 .5 8 N 28 .4 0 2 2 2 4 Proportion positive sign .82 .3 1 2 2 4 4 7 8 Z of proportion positive 3.40 .2 2 Combined Stouffer Z 6.60 . 1 3 8 8 t tes t of mean Z 3.23 .0 7 7 9 Correlation between h and Z .86 - -.0 5 Correlation between h and raw i 98 -.1 0 Number of studies with mean Z = 0.00 - -.2 required to bring combined results -.3 2 to ~ > .05 423 -.4 0 * Confidence Interval s -.6 f _ t -.7 80% .17 .39 -.8 95X .11 .45 -.9 3 99% .04 . .52 99.9: -.03 59 * where N = 28 studies Unweighted; weighted mean = . 23

OCR for page 75
78 TABLE 4 Proportion of Studies Reaching Critical Levels of Significance for Two Research Areas - Expected Expectancy Gansfeld Interval for Z Proportion Researcha Research Difference . Unpredicted Direction -1.65 and below .05 .03 .07 +.04 __ Significant -1.64 to +1.64 .90 .60 .50 -.10 Predicted Direction _ +1.65 and above .05 .36 .43 +.07 3 .. +2.33 and above .01 .19 .25 +.06 +3 . 09 and above .001 .12 .18 +.06 +3.72 and above .0001 .07 .04 -.03 a N = 345 studies; from Rosenthal ~ Rubin (1978). N = 28 studies ; from Honorton (1985~.

OCR for page 75
Table 4a Ef feet on Effect Size (h) of Removing Studies by Sargent Me an Median Sargent ' s Studie s (N=9 ~ . 3 0 . 37 Analysis by Studies Including Sargent (N=28) .28 . 32 Omitting Sargent (N=19) .26 . 32 Dif f erence . 02 . 00 Analysis by Investigators Includi ng Sargent (N=10) .23 . 32 Omitting Sargent (N=9) .22 . 34 Dif ference . 01 - . 02

OCR for page 75
79 TABLE 5 Situational Taxonomy of Human Performance Technologies Human Performance Techno logy Mental. Biofeed- SALT NLP Prac t ice back ESP Mean effect size (r) .2g .~7 .~3 .~3 .~4 N of studies on which our analysis is based 6 8 60 20 28 Approximate number of studies in population 30 15 100 2300 28 Exogenous Factors Random assignment no yes yes yes yes Es blind to condition no rarely no rarely yes Adequate comparison groups or values no yes sometimes sometimes yes Mean length of inter- 32 1 hr 9.4 ses- action per study hours signs Endogenous Factors 26 30 days trials Self-expectancies important? yes no yes yes maybe Climate of E/S very warm/ neutral thera- neutral interaction warm therapeutic peutic Overall quality rating _ ~ 10 very poor fair fair 9 13 19 good very good "Residual' effect size .00 .16 .18 .10 .09