Oh G-d, A Borderline: Clinical Diagnostics As Fundamental Attribution Error Page: 26
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Data Preparation and Preliminary Analyses
Eighty-seven individuals submitted their responses to the online administration. The
number of those who started but did not complete the experiment was not recorded. One
participant did not respond to any questions, but did submit her form, and was excluded from all
analyses. Four participants were excluded from analyses because they indicated that they had no
therapy contact hours, the only exclusion criteria for the study.
Missing data and variable recoding. Four participants had a single missing value on the
Clinical Attribution Scale (CAS); given the limited sample size, it was determined that it was
better to use imputation than to exclude those cases. There was no observed correlation between
individuals with missing values on the CAS and demographic variables, so the missing data was
considered random. Following suggestions and procedures outlined by Tabachnik and Fidell
(1996), and in consideration of findings suggesting that in the case of missing data on
psychometric instruments regression imputations are about as effective as more complicated
computer modeling, the former was utilized (Roth, Switzer, & Switzer, 1999). One other
respondent had two missing responses to the CAS and the imputation regression was non-
significant; that participant's data was removed from all further analyses. Following all necessary
imputations and removals the reliability of the CAS was assessed using Cronbach's alpha; the
measure demonstrated adequate reliability (a = .83).
Four demographic variables, theoretical orientation, ethnicity, contact hours, and religion
necessitated a small amount of re-coding, outlined below. For the variable theoretical orientation,
there were four participants that specified more than one orientation or recorded "integrative"-
Here’s what’s next.
This thesis can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Thesis.
Schmalz, Jonathan. Oh G-d, A Borderline: Clinical Diagnostics As Fundamental Attribution Error, thesis, December 2011; Denton, Texas. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc103389/m1/32/: accessed February 19, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; .