?

Log in

entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
DrG, Kathy Gerbasi, Ph.D.

The last measure that I will discuss was also incorporated into the study to look at social and cognitive behaviors that one could consider as part of the stereotype of furry behavior.   This survey actually has 5 subscales, each with 10 questions, as well as a total score (which is just the sum of the 5 subscales.)  (For the IRI, empathy measure, the four subscales DO NOT get added together, in case you are wondering).

 

The subscales tap into different behaviors there is a subscale  for social behaviors, attention switching, attention to detail, communication and imagination.

The scoring of the survey according to its author is rather odd in my opinion. The response format is "strongly agree, agree disagree, strongly disagree". But then the "agree and strongly agree" answers get scored as simply agree and the "strongly disagree and disagree" answers get scored as simply disagree. From an information standpoint that seems silly, so I have scored participants' responses in two different ways. First according to the author's original  instructions and second using the full response range (as was done in a recent Dutch study which used the same survey).

 

Typically males and females score differently on this survey  so we will continue to look at the effects of both furry status and sex of participant in the analysis.

Using the original scoring system, on NONE of the subscales do furry mean scores differ significantly from non- furries and similarly there are no significant differences on any of these subscales between male and female mean scores. For the total score, which is the sum of the five subscales, the furry group mean is statistically significantly  different, but only slightly higher (meaning less social) than the group mean for non-furries. The p value of this finding is .047, and the group mean for furries is 19.51 and for non-furries is 16.48. Both of these group means are in the range that the survey author indicates is "average". (The possible range of scores on this measure is from 0 to 50, and the author indicates that "average" is from 11 to 22).

 

Using what I refer to as the "Dutch" scoring system, strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, agree = 3 and strongly agree = 4, I rescored participants' responses and reanalyzed the data.  Using this scoring procedure, no significant differences appear in any of the subscales or the total scale. There are a few what we like to call  "borderline" cases...that means p values slightly over .05, not officially significant but kind of interesting.

For the attention to detail subscale the furry mean is about one point higher than the non-furry mean (p =.066), for the communication subscale the furry mean is about 2 points higher than the non furry mean (p =.065), and for the total scale the furry mean is about 6.5 points higher than the non-furry mean (p = .063).

 

For statisticians in the audience you probably appreciate that these differences in group means are small, the p values are NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT, and a serious issue with the analysis is the very unequal group sizes when comparing furries with non-furries and males to females.  In short these differences are not really differences, just kind of interesting...the kind of result that makes one wish they had a larger sample of females and non-furries.
 

So at this point we can pretty safely say that compared to non-furries who participated at Anthrocon our participating furries are quite similar on this measure of social type behaviors and it does not matter which scoring system is used.  Furthermore, when looking at the furry group mean of 19.51 on the total scale score it is within the range that the author has identified as "average".

Leave a comment
(I forgot there is a limit to what I can fit in an entry   grrrrr!!!!)

3. Masculinity and Femininity
For this we used Bem's Sex Role Inventory....there are 60 items, 20 are supposed to be masculine, 20 are supposed to be feminine and the remaining 20 are neutral (not supposed to be masculine or feminine). The possible scores on each the Masculine and Feminine scales will range from 20 to 140.
Before we get to the findings, let me just say that I am very suspicious that nearly 40 years after this scale was developed that these terms would be rated the same way today as they were when the scale was developed. That being said...here goes...

Again I broke the participant sample into 4 groups...male vs female and furry vs non furry;  so you have male furries, female furries, male non-furries and female non-furries.
For the total Masculinity score there was no significant difference  in group averages between  males and females and no significant difference  in group averages between furries and non-furries. The average score for furries was 96.13  and the average score for non-furries was 102.38.
For the total Femininity score, furries scored significantly( p =.041) higher than non-furries. The average score for furries was 97.36 and the average score for non furries was 91.08.  There was no significant difference between males and females on the femininity scores.

In this model, masculinity and femininity are conceptualized as two independent factors. What that means is a person can be high on masculinity and high on femininity, or high on just one of the two and low on the other, or a person could score low on both factors.
In this model a person is considered "Androgynous" if they are high on both masculinity and femininity. A "masculine" person would be high on the Masculine score and low on the feminine score, and a feminine person would be high on the feminine score and low on the masculine score.  It is also possible for a person to be low on both masculine and feminine scores.
It should be noted, that a person's BIOLOGICAL sex is not a relevant factor to the model, just their self-reported traits are important.

So in addition to the masculinity and femininity factors we also derive an "androgyny " factor.  There are different ways to do this. The simplist way is to subtract the average masculinity score from the average femininity score. (Take the total Masculine(M) score divide by 20, take the total feminity (F)score divide by 20  and then subtract the M from the F.) If a score is 0 that means the M and F scores were identical. If the score is negative then M was higher than F, and if the score was positive then F was higher than M.  When we look at androgyny this way we find that furries are significantly  (p=.026) more likely to have androgyny scores closer to 0 (mean score .059), and non-furries more likely to have scores that are negative (mean score -.565).
There was no significant difference between males and females. (One of the weaknesses of this analysis is the low number of females, especially non-furry females in the sample).

To me this is not the best way to look at Androgyny. Simply subtracting the M from the F score only tells you if the scores were similar or different, but not if the original M or F  scorees were high or low.
To address this, I created a  midway split between high and low M scores and midway split between high and low F scores and  classified everyone into one of the four following categories: as either below the middle on both M and F, above the middle on M and F (that would be androgynous), high on M, low on F(that would be "Masculine"), or low on M, high on F (that would be "feminine").
When comparing the distribution of furries and non-furries across these four categories we find non-furries a bit more likely than expected to end up in the masculine category (p =.049), this however can be explained by the predominance of males in the non furry group.
The following table represents only the males in the sample.


Males only distribution across M and F categories

 

Midway splits on M and F (based on all participants...males & females, furs &non-furs

Total

  Low on

 M and F

High on M, low F

High F, Low M

High

 M and F

 

 

 

 

 

Not Furry

Observed count

4

12

5

5

26

Expected Count

6.6

6.3

6.6

6.6

26.0

Furry

Observed count

58

47

57

57

219

Expected Count

55.4

52.7

55.4

55.4

219.0

                                        Total

Observed Count

62

59

62

62

245

 

 

 

 

 

 



From this we observe that male furries are slightly underrepresented in the high M, low F group relative to nonfurry males, and conversely non furry males are underrepresented in the other three groups.  This is statistically significant ( p=.049).



Tags:
Current Mood: pensive pensive

Leave a comment
Please refer to part two for the introduction of these different variables (concepts we were trying to measure).
Also keep in mind that absolutely none of these tests or results are diagnostic of any sort of problem or condition and we are reporting group averages!

Significance/statistical significance has a very specific meaning. When statistical tests are conducted, they produce a "p" value.
The "p" value is the probability that the results of the test are due to chance. Meaningful/interesting results are ones with LOW p values, indicating that the particular pattern of results obtained is not likely to be due to chance. The accepted largest p value that one would be "interested in" is  p = .05. That means that 1 time out of 20 you could expect to get those results by chance.  Smaller values of p are more exciting, eg  p=.001... that means the probability of those results being due to chance is 1/1000.


1. MCSDS-Social Desirability  There was no significant difference between furries and non-furries on this measure. When participants were grouped by sex and furry vs non-furry there was also no significant difference in social desirability scores. The average score was about 10, which is  in the middle of the range of possible scores.  (Possible scores on this measure range from 0 to 20.) This suggests that furries are pretty typical in concerns about social desirability.

2. Empathy -IRI results.  Below is a quote from Professor Davis' website about the IRI subscales:
http://www.eckerd.edu/academics/psychology/iri.php
This should help you understand what his scale (survey) is trying to measure.
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980, 1983) is a measure of dispositional empathy that takes as its starting point the notion that empathy consists of a set of separate but related constructs. The instrument contains four seven-item subscales, each tapping a separate facet of empathy. The perspective taking (PT) scale measures the reported tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others in everyday life ("I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective"). The empathic concern (EC) scale assesses the tendency to experience feelings of sympathy and compassion for unfortunate others ("I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me"). The personal distress (PD) scale taps the tendency to experience distress and discomfort in response to extreme distress in others ("Being in a tense emotional situation scares me"). The fantasy (FS) scale measures the tendency to imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations ("When I am reading an interesting story or novel, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me")."

For this analysis I divided the participants into 4 groups, by male vs female and furry vs non-furry.
The statistical problem is that furries greatly out-number non furries and males greatly outnumber furries, but the research literature is that females score differently  on the IRI than males, so this seems to be the right approach....despite some small sample sizes.

Scores on each of the subscales can range from 0 to 28.

For the (PT) PerspectiveTaking scale and the (PD) Personal Distress scale there are no significant differences due to either a person's sex or furry status.


 For the (FS)  Fantasy scale we find females score significantly higher than males, females average (mean) score of 
  21.73  and  19.19 for males,  p=.011. Also furries (mean 19.85) score significantly higher than non-furries ( mean 15.47)

  p=.042.

 

 For the (EC)  Empathic Concern scale we get a significant difference only for furry vs non-furry. Furries score significantly higher(mean 21.34) than non-furries (mean 17.95), p=.001.   I guess if we did not find this, I would suspect a lack of validity in the measure!

The main purpose of using the IRI was to address the stereotype that furries are socially challenged. The thinking was, that if the stereotype were true then they might score lower on the IRI than  other folks. The comparison between furries and non-furries in our sample does not support this.  Furthermore, when I  statistically compared our data to mean scores that Davis provides we find our whole sample, (males, females furries and non-furries) score higher on PT, EC, FSand PD than the mean values that Davis provides for males and higher on PT and FS than the mean values that Davis provides for females.
One of the things that bothered me about the IRI, was that it looked like it was "contaminated" with social desirability and that issue had not really been addressed in the research literature.
To assess this, correlation coefficients were computed between IRI scale scores and the MCSDS(social desirability scores).  A correlation coefficient is an expression of the degree of linear relationship between two sets of numbers. Teh scores can range from -1.00 to +1.00. The closer to 1 (either plus or minus one) the stronger the relationship, meaning the more accurately you can predict one score if you know the other. The sign of the correlation (positive or negative) tells you if the scores are moving in similar or opposite directions. The correlation below of .364 between MCSDS and IRIPPT means the higher the MCSDS score someone has, the more likely they are to have a higher PT score. The correlation below of -.199 means the higher the MCSDS score the LOWER the PD score.   The Fantasy scores do not correlate with the MCSDS scores, the EC score is positively correlated with social desirability but not as strongly as the PT score.
There are in fact pretty strong correlations between some of the IRI scales and MCSDS.

Number of participants  range from 213 to 219, the numbers fluctuate  due to missing data.

MCSDS and  IRI PT  r = .364  (p = .000)  

MCSDS and  IRI FS  r = -.057 (not significant)  

MCSDS and IRI EC  r =.175 (p = .011) 

MCSDS and IRI PD r = -.199 (p = .003)  

(all p values two tailed)


 

Tags:
Current Mood: thoughtful thoughtful

1 comment or Leave a comment
I added a whole lot of information to the previous post today and the computer "ate" it...so part two will be continued in a new post aptly titled part three a little later today. Sorry for the delay.

Current Mood: aggravated aggravated

Leave a comment
You might be less interested in part two of my report than you were in part one, but here goes...
 
First a general word...with the exception of questions about furry identity and demographic questions, other surveys we use are virtually always NOT ALTERED BY ME OR ANY OF MY COLLABORATORS. I know (because you tell me)...it is frustrating for you to feel like you are asked the same question a few different ways. If we use an existing scale, we really cannot change it, because that would destroy the validity of the measure, rendering the work scientifically useless.  So we are not trying to be tricky or sneaky or anything like that, we are just trying to be competent researchers!

It is imperative to remember that absolutely none of the measures are diagnostic in any way.
I am a social psychologist. Social psychologists concern themselves with how people interact with, influence and think about each other.
All that being said, I will try to discuss the psychological variables we were trying to look at and present the results associated with them.  As always please feel free to send me questions, comments and suggestions. 

We had four basic constructs (variables) that we were looking at...these were basically the middle pages of the survey.  They were briefly mentioned in the debriefing script that we handed out in the research panel on the last day of Anthrocon.

1) Social Desirability, MCSDS short forms. This was the true false survey. The idea is that people when they answer a survey are often motivated to "look good" eg answer in a socially desirable way. To the extent that a person wants to "look good" (that would be pretty normal/typical by the way), that might influence how they answer many questions on a survey. By us measuring this factor, we could look at general social desirability levels and also the extent to which social desirability scores  might correlate with scores on other measures we had on the survey.  (FYI the MCSDS is about 40years old and very widely used in the research literature)

In particular, the empathy measure, looked to me to heavily contaminated with social desirability, but  that factor has been pretty much ignored in the research literature ( I am feeling like my choir director here, he always tells me stuff and says but you don't really care about this and then keeps telling me anyway...you probably aren't really interested in psychometric properties of various measurement scales, but I am a professor by trade and feel compelled to explain to you why we use the measures we use and what we are interested in...you can skip this stuff if you want and I'll never know :).

2) The empathy measure, the IRI, is supposed to tap into four different areas of cognitions/feelings related to empathy.
They are Perspective taking, fantasy, empathic concern, and  personal distress. A brief but informative article is online at
www.uv.es/~friasnav/InterpersonalReactivityIndex.doc
FYI the IRI is about 30 years old and widely used.  I am copying and pasting here for you information about the 4 subscales from Professor Davis who is the author/researcher

"The perspective taking (PT) scale measures the reported tendency to spontaneously adopt the psychological point of view of others in everyday life ("I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective"). The empathic concern (EC) scale assesses the tendency to experience feelings of sympathy and compassion for unfortunate others ("I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me"). The personal distress (PD) scale taps the tendency to experience distress and discomfort in response to extreme distress in others ("Being in a tense emotional situation scares me"). The fantasy (FS) scale measures the tendency to imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations ("When I am reading an interesting story or novel, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me")." 
http://www.eckerd.edu/academics/psychology/iri.php

3) Masculinity/femininity. Furries have been asking me to look at gender for quite some time. Some furries have been somewhat irate that we have asked about biological sex without looking at gender characteristics. So this year we took that on. This was the measure that had 60 adjectives and people were asked to rate the extent to which each of the 60 traits described them. Our sample size shrinks a bit here, due to people not completing all items.
On this measure a person gets a masculinity score and a femininity score....HOWEVER and I think this is huge...this scale is old, from the 1970's and I am concerned that what was considered masculine and feminine 40 years ago, may be viewed differently now!  (Imagine that!) Despite my concern this scale is pretty widely used.
As I mentioned there are 60  adjectives, 20 are considered masculine, 20 feminine and 20 neither masculine nor feminine.
A person gets 3 scores...masculine(M), feminine(F) and a score that represents how their M and F scores are related.
What was key and revolutionary about this model  when it was developed was that Masculiniity and femininty were not conceptualized as opposites. Meaning a person could score high on both, low on both, high on M and low on F, and low on M and high on F.

4) Our fourth measure looked at a variety of social type behaviors, you all know the stereotypes about furries, so we decided to try and look at that.
(I am taking a break here...my 15 year old dog needs to go to the doggie dr...and I am posting this since I am afraid if I don't post it, it will get lost while I am gone.... I will finish this entry later tonight or tomorrow  promise)

So... here is what showed up in our data...
1. The social desirability scores of the furries and non-furries who participated were not significantly different from each other, and were about in the middle of the scale. The different furry types were not significantly different on this measure either.

2. The empathy (IRI) scores of the furries were significantly higher on 3 of the subscales (fantasy, empathic concern and personal distress) from the non-furries in the sample.  The furries also tended to score higher on the perspective taking subscale as well but this was not statistically significant (p=.088). For you who are not statisticians who are reading p must be less than or equal to .05 to be considered statistically significant.
(P values indicate the probablity that the results are due to chance, as a researcher you need p  to be a small number...that suggests a real effect.)  I have not yet compared the furry results to Davis, "population values" to determine if they are significantly different from the population values, but I have a hunch they will be. Davis breaks out the scores by sex of participant...Since most of our furries are males, I will list the male population  mean scores Davis provides  Perspective taking 16.78, Fantasy 15.73, Empathic Concern 19.04 and Personal Distress 9.46. (The population means for females are a bit higher than for males).
Different furry types did not have significantly different IRI scores.

I will put the rest in another post....still working....

7 comments or Leave a comment
If you were at Anthrocon you probably noticed that the surveys were not in the bag this year. That was due to the IRB at Kent State deciding at the last moment (Wednesday) of Anthrocon week, that they would not allow us to have the surveys put into the con bags. In spite of that setback we had about 400 people visit our table and pick up a survey and  275 people turned in surveys that were usable (indicated that they were or were not a furry). IRB required us this  year to proof peoples ages by checking their con badges, they did not want minors to have a copy of the survey, not even in a sealed envelope as we had done in the past.

We hope to work out a system for next year where everyone who is 18 and over gets offered a copy of the survey...that is a subject for a later report.

So for this year I can present some preliminary reports. It might take a more than one post to get everything in.

Of our 275 participants we had

furry males = 206,  furry females = 34

non-furry males =18, non furry females = 8

These results are similar to our past distributions, many many more furry male participants than furry females or non furs.

Regarding therian, otherkin and lycanthropes we had the following responses from the whole sample:

 

10 females and 27 males  self identified as therian (13 females and 75 males said they did not know what it meant)

  

4 females and 13 males self identified as otherkin (11 females and 61 males said they did not know what that meant)

  

5 females and 11 males self identified at lycanthropes  (7 females and 17 males said they did not know what that meant)

If you have followed any of our previous studies you may recall there are some"key" questions that we ask...
Q1 is Do you consider yourself less than 100% human ?
and
Q2 is If you could chose to be 0% human, would you?
People can answer yes or no to these questions providing 4 different possible patterns of responses.
No to both questions, no to one and yes to the other (and vice versa) and yes to both questions.

furry-types   (% of total respondents for these questions, does not quite =100% due to rounding)
Q1, Q2

no, no = 83 males 37% 12 females  5%  42%

no, yes= 45 males 20% 6 females 3%    22%

yes, no =20 males  9%  8 females  4%   12%

yes, yes= 47 males 21% 6 females 3%  23%

The percentage in the no, no group and yes, yes group is quite similar to our first and second studies!

We have also asked if you would like to be 0 percent human, is that for some of the time or all of the time (this was suggested to us by furries as an important question to ask and we agreed!)
Of the 121 people who answered this question, 44 said they would like to be non-human all of the time and 77 said they would like to be non-human some of the time.
There was no statistical difference between how males and females responded to this question.

We also asked (again as suggested by a furry) if you consider yourself more than 100% human
 

   68/210 (32%) males  and 10/37 (27%) females who answered said yes.

Another interesting question (I think) is if a person thinks that someone has a choice in being a furry or not.
We compared furries to non-furries in their response to that question and we also compared different furry types in their answers to that question (Can a person choose NOT to be a furry?)
Furries  and non-furries have a statistically different pattern of responses to the question, while the various furry types do not differ in their answers.

can a furry chose not to be furry:

                 no               yes                   don't know

non furries 1                 12                    13

furries   53                   126                   67   p = .019 non furs less likely to say no, furs more likely to say yes

non furs more likely to say I don't know furs less likely to say I don't know.
 

Comparing furry responses to the above broken down by furry type there is no significant difference among furry types.
 

 

With regard to sexual orientation, we have again changed our questions in response to suggestions made by furries.
We are continuing to use a Kinsey type scale (which came from a suggestion the first year, AND this year we added a second question regarding sexual orientation in a furry identity (versus sexual orientation when not in furry identity).

When in a non-furry identity, furries are significantly less likely to identify themselves as heterosexual than were the non-furries in the study.

When looking at sexual orientation in the furry identity,  female furries are clustered between heterosexual and bisexual, no female furries reported being homosexual and male furries are distributed across the whole Kinsey scale, from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual.This is a  very statistically significant difference between male and female furries. The patttern is as follows:  (kinsey scale 1 is exclusively heterosexual, 4 is equally heterosexual and bisexual, and 7 is exclusively homosexual)

kinsey scale               1       2       3       4       5       6       7
# females furries        8      5       9       8       0        0      0
# male furries           28   29     20     32    17      32      45

Using the full range of the Kinsey scale, about 40% of the furries responding indicated a different sexual orientation in their furry identity than in their non-furry identity.

For most of the demographic factors (employment, education, political views, vegetarian, childhood and adulthood pet keeping) furries did not differ significantly from non-furries in their distribution of responses to these items.
The one exception is age. Furries in the sample tended to be younger than the non furries. The mean furry age was 25.3 and the mean non -furry age was 30.4. 
If you look at Klisoura's online furry survey http://www.klisoura.com/ot_furrysurvey.php    you will see a considerable portion (about 42%) of his participants are in the 19 and under age group.
We are not allowed by federal regulations to survey anyone under the age of 18. In a study which goes through IRB (Institutional Review Board) which applies federal regulations regarding protecting human participants, anyone under 18 would need parent permission to participate. Obviously at Anthrocon that would be a monumental hurdle to overcome, especially since it appears the number of minors attending is fairly small.

This is a research concern of mine, in terms of establishing the representativeness of the Anthrocon samples we have obtained.


 

 

 


 

 



5 comments or Leave a comment
Thanks to everyone who attended the Panel Sunday afternoon. It was very helpful to get everyone's suggestions.
We had about 275 participants this year. Due to the Kent State IRB (Institutionial Review Board = Human Subject's Review = Protection/Ethics) not permitting us to distribute the surveys in the con bags (as they had the past two years) our numbers are considerably lower than they were for 2007 and 2008.  They did not want minors to have access to the survey.
We will try to get the survey to virtually everyone 18 and over next year by coming up with a new distribution system that is acceptable to both the IRB and of course the Anthrocon folks.
The good news is due to the smaller sample size, I should have some preliminary results pretty quickly.
My plan is to get some closure on this year's study and then go back to last year's work and re-enter the evil nephew's invalid data and then proceed with that.
As always please contact me if you have questions.

I awarded 4 gift certificates...one remains unclaimed chibikitsune@aol.com  , if you know this person please have them check their email.
Uncle Kage's parents drew the tickets. I also donated $100 to the Wildlife Rescue on behalf of Anthrocon Charity.


I do apologize for the extremely undetailed debriefing script. It is the one Kent State approved.
If you have questions about it, please email me...or post a message on live journal.


Tags:
Current Mood: cheerful cheerful

1 comment or Leave a comment
As promised in the informed consent letter for this year's survey here is the Kent State Human Subjects Review Board Debriefing Script:

Furry Survey 2009 Debriefing Handout 

 

(and will be posted on Gerbasi's Live Journal page  http://drg_kcgerbasi.livejournal.com the week after the convention )

 

 

          There were two main goals of this year's project. The first is to replicate previous questions about furry identity with the questions from the first and last sections of the survey. The second major purpose of this year's study was to continue to explore various aspects of the furry personality and explore associations between various furry types and personality factors.

 

          There were four measures used in the study this year.  Please note that none of the measures which we use are diagnostic. The variables which are addressed by these measures are sociability, empathy, sex role identification, and social desirability.

         

          As you are most likely aware there exists a furry stereotype of the furry as "socially inept" and misanthropic (source: http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Stereotype). The measures on this year's survey provide an opportunity to address these stereotypes.

           

           

          Results from this year's study (when they become available) as well as our previous studies are posted on Dr. Gerbasi's Live Journal page, which is  http://www.drg_kcgerbasi.livejournal.com .

 

Thank you for your help and interest!

Please direct questions to:

Dr. Kathy Gerbasi, aka Dr. G 

Associate Professor Psychology

Niagara County Community College

Sanborn, NY 14132

kgerbasi@niagaracc.suny.edu  or furrystudy@niagaracc.suny.edu



Tags:
Current Mood: confused confused

Leave a comment
The good news is the first furry research article has just been published in a genuine scholarly peer reviewed journal (as opposed to the kind of media junk that has previously been published about the fandom).
The journal is called appropriately enough, Society & Animals, published by Brill.  It is volume 16 number 3, a nearly final version of the article already lives on line at the American Sociological Association.
In a year the whole article will be available free to everyone with internet access at the society & animals forum website.
The bad news is the continued tail ooops tale :) of woe left in the wake of HURRICANE NEPHEW(see previous post)... When I began to analyze some results from this summer I discovered the extremely careless (therefore unreliable and invalid way) that the little (expletives deleted) so and so entered the data. Now before I can analyze the results I have to very carefully proofread what the kid entered. Since the middle of the semester is approaching it will be some time before I can do that.

I repeat from previous post...beware relatives wanting jobs!
I will keep you updated.
Thanks DrG

Current Mood: happy happy

6 comments or Leave a comment
Long time no posts  :( To make a long sad story short, I felt sorry for a relative(a college senior) who needed a summer job and he said he would enter the survey data into the computer for me in about 2 weeks (it should have been ALL done by late July....by mid August when he had completed about half of the task I fired him and had to enter the rest of the data myself. I finished around Labor Day, just in time to return to the real? world of college teaching. 
So the analysis of this year's data is very behind.
The good news is that my youngest kid, a statistical and computer savvy grad student will be home in late October and she has promised to help with the analysis.

Moral of the story...don't hire a relative, especially one you hardly know.

As some of you may know when people ask me if I am a furry I say no, I just like dogs.
Well at the end of the summer I realized just how lazy and chubby my 4 year old dog Dooley was getting. My 12 and 14 year old dogs are not into rough and wild play...so I set out to find Dooley a buddy.
(I highly recommend petfinder.com). I did want a rescue dog, but did not want a pit bull or lab or chihuahua which is about all that you can rescue around here, so I drove to Michigan  (only a couple hundred miles if you go through Canada...and got a really neat extremely mixed hybrid [puppy (about 5 months old)...terrier, basset hound, beagle and Australian Cattle dog.
My oldest daughter(36) suggested Huckleberry so we went with that, my husband pointed out a few days later his name is TOM, duh so now we have Huck and Tom.
Dooley and Huck are having a BLAST!!!
More in October and thanks for being patient and understanding.
DrG

Current Mood: embarrassed embarrassed

Leave a comment