matched subject design 1

1)Separate the 40 participants listed below into two groups of 20, in which each group has an equal number of men and women (10 M, 10 F each). Use a random numbers table (text, pp. 537-538) to accomplish this. (Start anywhere in the table, and proceed in any direction that you like. Odd numbers put the subjects in group 1; even numbers in group 2. When one group is filled, the rest go into the other group.)

2)Next, separate the participants into two groups by using range matching (decide on your acceptable ranges in advance, for example, within 5 pounds).

a)Match as many pairs of female participants as possible: find a match and randomly assign one to the first group, and the other to the second group. Next, do the same for the male participants.

b)Next, match not only on gender, but also on weight.

c)Finally, match the participants on all three variables.

3)Finally, match the 40 participants on gender, weight, and height, using rank-ordered matching.

40 Participants to be matched:

NameGenderWeight (lbs.)Height (in.)

#1. Anna BoFannaF11060

2. Sandy BeachF14070

3. Chuck WagonM20072

4. Ken GarooM18070

5. Seymour ClearlyM19071

6. Phil O’DendronM21074

7. Rhoda DendronF12065

8. Pete MossM15068

9. Howie DooitM16070

10. Willy MakeitM18070

11. Betty Won’tF10063

12. Al GebraM19072

13. Carol OfthebellsF9555

14. Harold BethynameM24076

15. Andy WalkswithmeM25075

16. Rod AndreelM22072

17. Stu PottsM19069

18. Sharon SometimetogetherF10865

19. Clara AsabellF11568

20. Allyson WonderlandF11868

21. April ShowersF11063

22. Ben DoverM19069

23. Hugh GottabekiddinmeM20072

24. May FlowersF13070

25. June BlossomsF10060

26. Helen HighwaterF13568

27. Sam IamM19569

28. Mike RobiologyM21572

29. Maye BeesoF13467

30. Polly Warner-CrackerF10954

31. Rick O’ChetM14064

32. Bill BoardM18070

33. I. C. FreezeM19071

34. Barry UmM20072

35. Raye DiumF11267

36. Helena BaskitF11466

37. Summer RayneF9665

38. Deniece DenephewF12269

39. Goldie LoxF10563

40. Cindy RellaF12468

This is a Collaborative Learning Community assignment.

Review the “Matched-Subjects Design” document, found under course materials tab, and follow the instructions listed in the document.

Working with your group members complete the design experiment.

After completing the exercise, have a scholarly discussion around the following questions in your CLC thread:

1.Advantages for each technique. Provide at least two.

2.Disadvantages for each technique. Provide at least two.

3.Discuss the criteria used to determine the appropriateness of random assignment versus matching techniques.

As a group, come to a consensus for each question. Choose a recorder to record your consensus in a word document to be submitted to your instructor. You will not need to prepare an APA style paper, you may use bullet points to convey your consensus; however strong academic writing is still expected, as well as in-text citations where appropriate.

Submit your individual “Matched-Subjects Design” document, the recorder will submit the consensus paper along with their “Matched-Subjects Design” document. See the resources titled “Submitting Multiple Assignment Documents” for assistance.