http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/Frequency-analysis-tp5650112p5650655.html
Total boondocks. The nature of the situation is unimportant to this problem. Random guessing yes or no is 50:50. If response is biased to "no" because the word wasn't there then that is just fodder for interpretation of a significant result.
A change in chance here has to come from something else, an outside bias. Say the "no" button is a default response that has to be manually changed. That is akin to flipping a weighted coin.
> Since 'butterfly' does not appear in the list, does not even a 15 percent
> rate of recall constitute a 'strong tendency for false memory'?
>
> I would have thought that to talk of 'chance proportion' the term butterfly
> would have had to appear in the list.
>
> But I am probably in the boondocks...!
>
> Len Vir
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rose, Fred <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>> That is a definite issue – I’m not sure of the correct chance proportions
>> would be. For those not familiar with the task, participants read a list of
>> words such as “moth insect wing bird fly bug cocoon color net” and ask
>> recall or recognition. The false memory occurs when a participant falsely
>> remembers the critical word – in this case, “butterfly”. I don’t think it’s
>> correct to say that 50% is the correct chance proportion but I’m not sure
>> what a correct value would be. It is likely that a 55% false memory rate is
>> higher than false alarm rate on a word list task where the list consists of
>> unrelated words, but again, I’m not sure where to go with it. The bottom
>> line is that I would like to be able to claim that the 55% rate reflects a
>> strong tendency for false memory to occur.
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/12 1:49 PM, "Bruce Weaver" <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> It sounds like you're looking for the binomial test. It's not clear what
>> proportions you expect in the two categories by chance, but if it was 50%,
>> the command would look like this (where "recalled" is an indicator variable
>> for recall, 0=No, 1=Yes):
>>
>> NPAR TESTS
>> /BINOMIAL (0.50)=recalled
>> /MISSING ANALYSIS.
>>
>>
>> HTH.
>>
>>
>>
>> Rose, Fred wrote
>>>
>>> Frequency analysis
>>>
>>>
>>> This is one of those questions that seems so ridiculously simple that
>>> I’m embarrassed to ask it, but I’m drawing a blank.
>>>
>>> I’ve got nominal data (yes/no) from a sample of men and women doing
>>> a variant of the Roediger and McDermott False Memory paradigm. The
>>
>>> yes/no responses relate to whether or not the individual indicated that
>>> they “remembered” a critical word that, in fact, was never
>>> presented (the study was more complicated than this, but I’m
>>> describing the specific analysis I’m working on now). The
>>> distribution is roughly 55% yes to 45% no. I am trying to figure out
>>
>>> the proper test of whether this pattern deviates from chance.
>>> I’m not comparing men and women, but just over all whether
>>> this is a high rate of false recognition in the sample as a whole.
>>
>>>
>>> Any kind soul willing to help a guy out?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Fred
>>> --
>>> Fredric E. Rose, Ph.D.
>>> Associate Professor of Psychology
>>> Palomar College
>>> 760-744-1150 x2344
>>> frose@
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ====================To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message
>>> to
>>> LISTSERV@.UGA (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
>>> command. To leave the list, send the command
>>> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
>>> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
>>> INFO REFCARD
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> --
>> Bruce Weaver
>>
[hidden email]
>>
http://sites.google.com/a/lakeheadu.ca/bweaver/>>
>> "When all else fails, RTFM."
>>
>> NOTE: My Hotmail account is not monitored regularly.
>> To send me an e-mail, please use the address shown above.
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
http://spssx-discussion.1045642.n5.nabble.com/Frequency-analysis-tp5650112p5650183.html>> Sent from the SPSSX Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> =====================
>> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
>>
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
>> command. To leave the list, send the command
>> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
>> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
>> INFO REFCARD
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fredric E. Rose, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor of Psychology
>> Palomar College
>> 760-744-1150 x2344
>>
[hidden email]
>> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
>>
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
>> command. To leave the list, send the command SIGNOFF SPSSX-L For a list of
>> commands to manage subscriptions, send the command INFO REFCARD
>
> =====================
> To manage your subscription to SPSSX-L, send a message to
>
[hidden email] (not to SPSSX-L), with no body text except the
> command. To leave the list, send the command
> SIGNOFF SPSSX-L
> For a list of commands to manage subscriptions, send the command
> INFO REFCARD
command. To leave the list, send the command