Course talk:PSYC305/2013ST2/ClassProject/1 Abstract

When outlining the methods that we used here I think we could give a bit more detail of the creating the scale process. How and with what instructions did you create the scale. How many items did it have?

Hi Jaimie, I was wondering if demographics is considered an item to measure and if we should mention it, also since for the first 3 questions there were numerous questions within each main questions, is each sub-question counted towards the final item count.

Hi Amy, no need to mention the demographics. I would count each sub-question to the final item count.

Hi guys, I ended up with 390 items in the final questionnaire, was that what others got? I counted all the sub questions as individual questions.

I counted 390 too Amy!

Wow that is a lot of counting, thanks for that.

For our title Kevin suggested Single Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents I changed it to single dimensional since we figured that out but I think the rest of it looks good. Any ideas?

HI Amy and all, I threw the title on there to see how it looks; any comments about hyphens, the title itself or the formatting? I'm wondering if we should format it larger ie same as other Wiki headings in the paper.

The length is just about right I don't think we should make it any longer. I like the first part of the title but maybe the second part could say something about finding which traits show a gender differential, something like single study questionnaire results exposing traits that demonstrate gender differential amongst undergraduate respondents. But something shorter

I think I get your drift Amy. How about losing 'single study' bit...

Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Questionnaire Demonstrates Correlation of Behaviors and Preferences with Gender in Undergraduate Respondents

It's about 15 words; in line with Field, 2008 It reads more like a news headline, that is, it says something about the results, not limited to the subject matter.

This is fun! Feel free to trash and start again if you're inspired!

Sounds good to me!

I was thinking maybe we should shorten the title just a bit and make it something like:

Single-Dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Correlation of Behaviors and Preferences with Gender in Undergraduate Respondents , maybe?

It seemed a little too long to me.

just a suggestion...

Sold! Good work Amy and Narmin, and everybody!

I love the creativity that's gone into naming the scale. We might want to think about whether we have created a multi-dimensional or single dimensional scale though.

I was thinking that it would be multidimensional since it would be possible to score high for feminine traits and also high for masculine traits and also from the questionnaire we were asking how much would you like to work in an occupation or hobby as opposed to having to choose between a masculine and a feminine quality on a single scale.

I'm not absolutely clear on the uni-multi-dimensionality issue. As Amy says, the individual results allow for being high in masciuline or feminine traits. Yet GD is by definition a measure of a group of people and their overall rating towards masc or fem items; would this ultimately be a uni-dimensional scale between masculinity and femininity? As Jaimie says, we need to decide this for our title and, I think, to add our stance to the Dimensionality page.

Title idea:

Multi-dimensional Gender Diagnosis: Single-study Questionnaire Results from Group of Undergraduate Respondents

note we have to solve this uni-multidimensionality issue!

Any other ideas? I'm just throwing this out there

Is it possible to score both high on masculinity and high on femininity on the gender diagnosticity scale. Likewise, is it possible to score low on both? What do others think?

I think it is possible to score on high in femininity and masculinity. For example, an individual who is often enjoy being with people, full of energy (extraversion), which is considered as more masculine trait, and simultaneously that person is very good at planning and organizing toward desirable goals (conscientiousness), but is not necessarily regarded as a boring person, and it is a more feminine trait. In terms of occupational preferences, such an individual may well suited for the Human Resources Department in the company, which requires the qualifications as action-oriented and reliable. Any suggestions to scoring low on both femininity and masculinity?

That's right it is possible in theory, but is it possible on our scale?

So since our scale has which aspects show a correlation to males and which to females we are looking at a single scale with the traits that show the difference at opposite ends of the scale for correlation. It would not be possible to score high on masculinity and femininity since with a female if they scored high on masculine items then that trait would not predict gender. This would make it a single dimensional scale, maybe.

Yep!

So to reiterate, our scale is uni-dimensional because after all it represents a single line of measurement; that is, correlations of preferences, hobbies and occupations only exist on a single line between polarities of maleness and femaleness. We have, in effect, a “single rule” (Trochim, 2008).

Hi All, so I took a stab at starting the Abstract; I gave us a title and reworked the first sentence, and didn't die! Ok I'm new to this Wiki stuff. I am the gray-haired guy who sits at the front of the class.

Please feel free to edit as you see fit; I look forward to learning from all the changes and from each of your contributions. I will continue to try to flesh out the abstract over the next day or two. cheers Kevin

Nice job on the abstract Kevin and great title for the questionnaire too! I just wanted to get the ball rolling. You took it to the end zone man :-) I guess we will have more to add if and when the results from the questionnaire come in.

Yes thank you and by all means subtract if necessary! Economy/parsimony in the abstract would make a strong impression. And there may be things here that belong elsewhere.

That reminds me, we'll need a title for the paper. Perhaps we can add it here and rename the page "Title and abstract"

This is looking great! I was just wondering if the questionnaire was actually mandatory? Due to the anonymity of the it, was there a way in place to keep track of who completed it? If there wasn't, it would have been difficult to find/penalize those who did not take the time to do it, unless Jaimie had a way of knowing who did and did not complete it. By no means a big issue, just wanted to clarify!

Good question Sydney. I understand that participation in the discussions was mandatory for a mark on the project, but don’t recall reading anywhere that it was mandatory that we had to complete the questionnaire.

Unless we can find written proof of that point perhaps we can assume those of us who completed it acted on our own motives, a perceived expectation or sense of duty or curiosity. To echo Sydney's question: does anyone know if completion of the questionnaire was mandatory?

Cheers Kevin

Is everyone okay if I reduce the abstract down to the normal length and add our results into it.

Yes, keeping it short is a good idea and the results definitely need to be added.

So I greatly reduced it down and added the main results, I can add some for discussion once those pages finish up. I removed parts that were discussed in other sections to keep it shorter. Also, I was reading through the other sections and they seem to mention masculinity and femininity, as opposed to male-like and female-like so I was wondering if we could remove that sentence and use masculine and feminine for the report. Feel free to edit as this is a rough draft before the whole report finishes up.