- 最后登录
- 2014-7-27
- 注册时间
- 2010-7-6
- 威望
- 5
- 金钱
- 352
- 贡献
- 270
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 积分
- 627
- 日志
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 帖子
- 50
- 主题
- 4
- 精华
- 0
- 好友
- 7
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d51ba/d51baeeb2cbe671b596c8757008211e5c38c4dae" alt="Rank: 5" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7ae57/7ae575322528d654e19debeb9ab15d4afae7cd71" alt="Rank: 5"
- 注册时间
- 2010-7-6
- 最后登录
- 2014-7-27
- 积分
- 627
- 精华
- 0
- 主题
- 4
- 帖子
- 50
|
Kenneth 发表于 2013-3-21 13:19 ![]()
8 r7 {6 a8 ^7 J F) E6 Vmostwanted,不肯定我明白你的问题。不过,「firm level的自变量对individual level 的因变量的主效应是显 ... 0 B6 B3 o9 P8 |) W
kenny,我的问题就如如下这段话所述(该段话来自Liu et al., 2012, AMJ): To justify that HLM3 was appropriate for analyzing our three-level data, we first ran null models with no predictors but creativity as the dependent variable (Raudenbush et al., 2004). The results show significant between-team variance ( x2 (86) =215.68, p< .001; ICC1 =.28 [indicating 28 percent of variance resides between teams]) and between-department variance ( x2(21)=112.43, p <.001; ICC1 = .18 [indicating 18 percent of variance resides between departments]) in creativity. 4 T# Z" A: s K3 [" u/ K% `# r7 K a
该文算出来的between-department variance of creativity 是显著的,ICC1(department)=0.18.但是我的data算出来between-department variance of creativity不显著,相应地ICC1(department)也比较小。reviewer质疑我的between-department variance of creativity都不显著,我为何还要在department level 放preditor呢??但是我放的departmen-level predictor对creativity的回顾系数是显著的,我该如何respond?? 希望我这次讲清楚了我的问题。 |
|