Well done you! I hope you get it done ;-)

I see what you mean - that's what I meant too but you've put it down much nicer. I hadn't been controlling for demographics at all as I'd done some tests of difference before and my sample is pretty homogeneous. I've only been controlling for the other IVs so I'll try your suggestion now. I've come to the conclusion that I'm just gonna do it now and write it up as I need to get ALL done by the weekend and I'm fairly behind. How is your work going by the way?

Hi Sarahlouise,

Not sure if this helps but mine is only about 35,000 and my lit review is 5,000.

@Natassia, not sure if this helps, these are some of the things that I learned from my mistakes:
1) Make good use of titles, subtitles, etc
2) Keep track of your references as you go along
3) Always keep in mind what you're trying to tell the reader (that helps to extract unnecessary info and keep you focussed on the topic)

I've been thinking about dropping the controls altogether. Is that what you mean?

I'll have a look at the options now for the pairwise function, I'm afraid I'm 2hrs away from uni at the moment so I can't use their comps :( btw, thank you for all this advice, I REALLY appreciate it!

I don't think I can reduce my controls and I don't have bootstrapping. How would you run it pairwise though? Stats is def not one of my strengths...

Just over 150 but it's only taking 139 into consideration, probably due to missing values as I couldn't replace all of them due to their nature. I feel like crying but instead I'm going to email sups and have a cup of tea before I come back and think about it again.

I did that, I set it up with 4 blocks but output only gave me 3 models and there's something wrong with the last one. It should have IVxM1, IVxM2 and M1xM2 but it's not taking into consideration M1xM2. There's an error saying 'Tolerance = .000 limits reached' any ideas?

Great news, Batfink!!

I've only just managed to sit down now, not good I know, but I had to sort a couple of things and do some food shopping to do. After 2 days of having toast for breakie and lunch and soup for dinner, I'd thought I'd better go. At least I won't have to go again until all of this is done I think!

By the way, my head is much better Squaredot, I think it was just overloaded and frustrated, thank you for asking.

Goal for today, I only have a couple, one is to chase up two references but I'm hoping this won't take long and the other is to finish my analysis.

Erm.. how do you control for variables? I'd thought you had to enter them in a block alone first but you can only have 3 blocks so I wouldn't have enough blocks. Anyone?

I'm with Sneaks on this one, I prefer nice examiners! I just think I'll be nervous enough and I really don't need some dictator-style person. (Sorry, you didn't get to choose yours Sneaks!)

I was told by an unbiased colleague to go for someone who's 'nice and fair'. So that's what I've done, my internal is someone who doesn't know a lot about the subject but has related interests (my topic is a bit too specific) and my external is the 'expert' in the field. Both examiners are nice in the sense that they're there to challenge me but not to put me down (as I've heard some do/have done), but to get me to think about my research.

I've read some of my external's work but not my internal's. I've never met either of them but I trust the people who recommended them to me. So, for me, knowing their work and meeting them in person is not essential at all.

======= Date Modified 14 Sep 2011 20:05:27 =======
======= Date Modified 14 Sep 2011 20:05:09 =======
Thanks for that Sneaks! I'm afraid moderators moderate all IVs but I only have access to SPSS so I'll just have to go with the above.

I hadn't thought of your way at all so thank you!

Hope everyone had/has a productive day. I've been trying to really finish my analysis/results section and my head is spinning! Literally!! I think I'll have some food and a bit of rest before I go back to it...

I've been going around in circles with this so any suggestions/feedback would be great.

I have:
3 predictors/IVs
2 moderators
2 criteria/DVs

I've centered the data, calculated interaction variables, etc the bit I'm unsure about is the actual multiple regression.

Initially I'd done individual regressions for each IV/mod/DV combination but I've realised that I'll be losing lots of power as will need to divide p by the number of tests. I don't think I can do 3IVs/2mods for each DV, which would mean I get two equations, or can I? Or do I just group the predictors and calculate different equations for all the possible mod/DV combinations which would then give me 4 equations?

Any ideas are welcome!

The penny droppedl I'm sorry then, you're right, you can't use chi-square...

I'm not familiar with the Cochran Q test so can't comment much on it apart from I've had a look at wikipedia and it looks like it's what you need. Maybe someone else will be able to help?