it is a sample of convenience. I aimed to have 110 kiddos split equally by gender not intelligence. The self concept tool that I am using was validated for use with children with mild cog impairment and average intelligence. So I was limited to include only those children with CP with average intelligence or mild cog impairment. I did have children with above average intelligence, but I grouped them with those with average intelligence. I did this as I was not measuring intelligence, but rather using it a demographic item/descriptor. In the end I will be using educational placement to describe intelligence as I ran into a few problems (see previous post).
My hypothesis is to first cross validate a self concept measure for use with children with CP. Hence all of analyses dealing with internal consistency and construct validity of the measure.
My second hypothesis to describe quantitatively self concept in children with CP. If the measure is proven valid and reliable, I will attempt to describe quantitatively the child's self concept as it relates to the different demographic characteristics that I collected (age, gender, grade, educational placement, assistive devices, physical impairment level, classification of CP (di,hemi,quad), race, home environment). Also I will compare the children's with CP self concept levels with the norms (children without disability) that are provided by the publisher.
I would like this tool to be used as an outcome measure (before and after surgery, intensive therapy, change in educational placement). I can go off and say why this is so crucial, but time is limited for me now.
I also think self concept should be studied qualitatively; that is my next study after earning my PhD.
Again I hope this helps some,
Greta
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathleen Salkin<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: now greta's stats
Now, I'm really wondering...do you mean a third of your sampling will
have average IQs, a third will have below-average IQs and so forth?
Or do you mean this is a rule of thumb for the CP population as a
whole? What exactly is your hypothesis?
When I was in grad school, the sampling had to be truly random, with
a control group to test it against. Perhaps things have changed a
great deal in the social sciences since I was a MS candidate?
Kat
On 7 Jan 2006, at 23:00, greta von der luft wrote:
> OOPS I misspoke/typed. I meant kiddos with CP and average
> intelligence or kiddos with CP and mild cognitive impairment. I was
> trying to say that there was a range of intelligence....
>
> I know there is a rule of 1/3s. A third of the children with CP
> will have average intelligence, a 1/3 with mild cognitive
> impairment, and a 1/3 with severe cognitive impairment.
> Sorry,
> Greta
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brent Edwards<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:C<mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:C>-
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:03 PM
> Subject: Re: now greta's stats
>
>
> Perhaps I missed something here. At least I hope I did. But did
> no one
> else catch this?
>
>> I ended up with a good cross section of kiddos with CP (hemiplegic,
>> diplegic, quadriplegic; average to mild cognitive impairment...
>
> ummm... What about some kids with no cognitive impairment at
> all?? Like
> the kids that the people who post to this list grew up to be? Please
> Greta forgive me if there is something about the way your
> research was
> structured that precluded the use of data from cognitive normal
> subjects. But if that is not the case, methinks I catch a whiff
> of the
> old "all cp kids have cognitive impairment" meme. Those of us who
> are
> not so impaired (who I'm guessing is just about everyone on this
> list
> who has cp) aren't actually very fond of that piece of "conventional
> wisdom".
>
> Brent Edwards
> Resident List Crank
|
