| Statistics Consulting for Dissertations and other Research Projects having served over 150 clients since the year 2000 For students working on their dissertations or other research projects which require statistics, I offer the following services: * Running or checking on the statistical tests you are using. * Advising on additional statistical procedures that would be fruitful for your study, and running those as well. * Explaining to you carefully what the statistics mean until you understand well enough to write the results and explain what you did to your committee or professor. * Reading over your dissertation, thesis, or paper to catch any errors or to suggest improvements. You can avoid embarrassment when presenting it to others, and get feedback from someone who is not giving a grade before offering it to someone who is. * Practice oral defense sessions by telephone. I specialize in a quick turn-around. Results are guaranteed to be back within two weeks during the school year; the guarantee turns into mere expectation during the summer. Click here for my curriculum vitae. Charges $70.00 per hour (rounded to the next quarter-hour) for a running tab, to be invoiced at either around the 5-hour point or when there's a break in the need for services $189.00 for up to three hours if paid in advance, a 10% discount; especially popular with those on a tight budget $105.00 per hour rush job rate Rush job means: A tight deadline of one week or less (this can be waived if I would have gotten to it that quickly anyway); Direct telephone calls to me when no previous appointment was made (not counting initial inquiries); Telephone appointments on Sunday afternoon. (I am not available at all on Saturdays or Sunday mornings.) $40.00 per hour for tutoring for classes For phone appointments, the clock starts at the time of the appointment, and a minimum of a quarter-hour is charged for a missed appointment. Late fee: $20.00 for each full 30 days after invoice. Time Estimates: I cannot give time estimates because too many unforeseeable things can happen. Reviewing a chapter for constructive feedback usually takes about an hour, but all other services depend on many circumstances. The mode for the amount of time needed by direct clients is three hours, and the median is three and a half hours. Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D. 811 East 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64110 Voice: (816)753-2057 E-mail: stats@rachelmacnair.com Payment Options PayPal account or e-check ONLY: E-mail address for paying by PayPal from another PayPal account or e-check: pay@rachelmacnair.com (This address is not good for credit cards) Credit Card ONLY: E-mail address for paying by credit card with PayPal: drmacnair@hotmail.com Go to www.paypal.com, select the "Send Money" tab, and follow directions. Paper Check: Mail to above postal address. Data Entry Services For those who require that data be entered into an SPSS spread sheet, I sub-contract with a college student for this clerical work. The charge is 25 cents per variable/column plus 25 cents per case/row. Please make arrangements with me if you need this service. If you already have the data in an Excel worksheet, the college student can transfer it to an SPSS spread sheet for 10 cents per variable/column, which is the required work of re-labeling the variables, plus 25 cents for every column where text must be converted to numbers. It is extremely important, if you choose to send data for data entry, that you only send photocopies. Do not send the originals! They are far too precious to be subjected to the tender mercies of the post office. For other helpful resources available for graduate students: The Association for Support of Graduate Students (at asgs.org) supports graduate students working on their dissertations and theses through free services and modestly priced bulletins. ======================================== Let me explain . . . Sample Size Why does sample size makes a difference? Suppose you toss a coin ten times, and it comes out 7 heads, 3 tails. Then suppose you toss it 100 times, and it comes up 52 heads, 48 tails. Then you toss it 1,000 times, and it comes up 502 heads, 498 tails. The first time, it was 70% heads, the second 52% heads, and the third time the expected 50% when you round it. Yet in all cases, it was only two off of the 50-50! Being only two off shows up much more at the smaller number. If you had 70% heads after throwing it 100 or 1,000 times, you'd figure the coin must be loaded. You have enough cases to say that it's not coming out due to mere chance with an unloaded coin. But you can't say that with just ten throws -- after all, it's only two off. Standard Deviation If you take the average of these numbers: 4, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5, 3, 7, 5, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4 you will see that the mean is 5. (I made it simple, with means being 5 in each pair). But if you have instead these scores: 1, 9, 9, 1, 7, 3, 2, 8, 7, 3, 8, 2 you can see that you still have a mean of 5. But the numbers in the first set were pretty close to 5, whereas the numbers in the second set are all over the place. The mean average is the same, but the standard deviation for that second group is going to be much higher than for the first group. The standard deviation is the measure that tells you about how much variability there is this way, since there are times when the difference in high and low might mean something to what you're trying to study. Correlations, Causation, and Careful Measurement One of the basic points of statistical reasoning is that if you find two things are correlated with each other, you still don't know what's causing what -- correlation is not causation. People get into trouble all the time by mixing themselves up on this point. Remember first the difference between a positive and a negative correlation. When it's positive, the numbers tend to go up and down together -- say, the outdoor temperature and the consumption of iced drinks. When the correlation is negative, when one goes up, the other tends to go down, and vice-versa -- the outdoor temperature and the consumption of hot cocoa. Now, let's say we know that there's a positive correlation between poverty and crime. The first thing we have to figure out is how we measure poverty and crime. Poverty would generally be measured by income level. We'd actually be measuring income, and seeing that the lower income is associated with higher crime. This has problems. You could have someone who inherited a big house with plenty of garden space, close enough to places to walk so no car is needed. By contrast, someone with the same income who must rent an apartment, scrounge up food and suffer for lack of a car is considerably more poor. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to take account of this when making the measurement. Most measurements have these kinds of problems. When measuring large numbers of people, this is probably the best you can do. In social science, you'll never be perfect. So what about measuring crime? Do you take arrests, convictions, or police reports from an area? Each one will have a different impact on your final measure. If poor people get more false arrests than affluent people, then measuring arrests will get you a higher correlation than the reality of crime. Yet how do you know? Let's say we'll measure crime by convictions. Wanting to avoid mere traffic violations, we'll make it convictions for murder, assault, shoplifting, burglary, and armed robbery. Now, we find a positive correlation between this measure of poverty and this measure of crime. Did the poverty cause the crime? Did A cause B? There's some sense to that, in that people who are more financially stretched might be more likely to take the risks that go with, say, shoplifting. People who can afford the price are more likely to pay it rather than risk arrest, and people so rich that the price is pocket change are even more likely to go ahead and pay for it. This isn't always the case. Famous movie stars have been caught shoplifting. But of course this is only a correlation we're talking about, and we wouldn't expect it to be 1 to 1. Why it might tend to be true is not puzzling. Yet the causation may also be the other way around. Maybe crime causes poverty -- B causes A. Areas that are over-ridden with crime are less likely to attract stores and businesses that would employ people. Additionally, stealing a pair of shoes from someone who only has one will mean more poverty than stealing a pair from someone who has ten pairs. Thus, crime is causing poverty. Another possibility is that something else is causing both. This could then make them end up being correlated. In this case, a lack of education, say, may cause both poverty and crime. Which one is it? Actually, there's no reason to pick just one. They could all be true at the same time. Poverty and crime cause each other in a feedback loop, and other factors cause them both as well. Reality is complicated. We have complicated statistics to take all these into account at once, which is why we often go well beyond simple correlations in studying complicated realities. But there's an important point here concerning the measure of crime -- a bias. While murder and assault go across class lines, the remaining three were crimes that are simply more likely to be done by poor people. Suppose we replace shoplifting with tax evasion, another way of getting something without paying for it. Suppose we replace burglary with embezzlement. Then we replace armed robbery with selling vicious and illegal weapons to brutal dictators, or owners of factories ignoring safety regulations -- both things that do far more damage than individual instances of armed robbery. Suddenly, we would find that the correlation is reversed. There would be a negative correlation between poverty and crime, or a positive correlation between affluence and crime. That's because we selected the kinds of crime that one has to be affluent to even be able to do. This is important, because while many people think that proposing a link between poverty and crime will move us to have another reason to get rid of poverty, other people will use the information to have a prejudice against poor people. Prejudice is bad enough by itself, but all the worse when science is used to back it up, and the science is poorly done. This will also be true, of course, in any kind of study. Whatever the conclusions, it is important to pay attention to how you measured what you said you were measuring. You must watch your reasoning about the direction of causation. Think of alternative ways of explaining your results. Look at how different interpretations could apply. It's also important to list the limitations of your study well. This is not a sign of weakness. To the contrary, every study has limitations. The best scholar is the one that can articulate what they are. |
