Thanks everyone. I am already well into the thesis using Word, as pm133 suspected.

Thanks folks! I don't know what either of those things is but will have a google!

In my papers I put multiple regression models in a table, but for a presentation at a conference I am wondering if there is a more visually appealing way to show things. For instance, say you were assessing whether 10 predictors were associated with a dependent variable, and you found that 2 or the 10 were. Is there a good way to show this other than a massive table? I am thinking not... But perhaps there is a good way to show how those 2 significant predictors related to the outcome - on a graph?

Thanks any stats buffs!

TQ

Hello all

I'm just trying to figure out the best way to do my thesis appendices. There are a variety of materials I need to present, eg. ethics letters, worksheets. I am thinking I could convert them all to a particular format and copy and paste them in. Any advice on which format works best? I.e., will be good quality even when you zoom in and won't slow down my whole word document and make it freeze (I am still writing other parts of the thesis). Just thought I might be able to get some tips from those who have been there before me!

Cheers
Tudor

It just goes to show how much variation there is. Mine lasted 20 mins or half an hour at the most. I would have preferred one like Kenziebob's as that would have been more like prep for the real viva.

Also, search this forum, as I know that I have seen similar threads in the past.

Ha! It sounds rather similar to that! I think I would have left (and perhaps they would have got rid of me) if it were not for the fact that a) the other part of the job should be more up my street, and b) they have paid for me to undergo training for it (the other part of the job that is).

It's awkward and annoying though... I can't stand being unproductive and feeling like I was paid for nothing at the end of the day. Going to have another crack at understanding it now. I wish me luck!

Yeh, I feel pretty much the same way about it... and quite exasperated. It's for a systematic review. After trying to get my head around it for a few weeks, I was pretty straight with the manager about the lack of progress I'd made and why (lack of experience/skills) and that in order for me to make progress I think I need direct guidance from someone. But alas - nothing. I'll see how I get on next week and then raise it again and simply say I need to do something else if direct guidance isn't available. It's not a comfortable situation to be in - being paid and yet not producing tangible results. On the plus side - it's all experience (yeh right!) and it makes finishing my thesis seem like a piece of cake (ie. at least I can understand it)!

I also agree with AlphaOmega. If you seriously think you are going to have to re-write your thesis or large parts of it, then having it proofread after would make sense. But why would you be submitting if you honestly felt that way about it?

Definitely before. I read an article the other day that said that one of the things that examiners judge the thesis by is the readability/grammar side of things. Re your concern about needing it proofread twice (if you did get it done before the viva) - this wouldn't be necessary. You can simply highlight your corrections and proofread those parts yourself (or have someone else do it).

That said, as a native English speaker, I wouldn't invest in a professional proofreading service unless you are really concerned about it. I would just proofread it myself and have kind friends proofread parts of it for me.

Thanks Eng! And here is the link that helped me (in case anyone else on this forum has a similar query): http://www.globalacademicinstitute.com/8-reasons-to-attend-international-academic-conferences/

Thanks pm133 - I am doing that latter thing you suggest but still struggling greatly. I am not familiar with these methods at all. It is a new RA job, and nowhere on the job spec did it say I would need to know/have experience in these methods. And since this is a big part of the role, I am pretty annoyed. I'm trying to learn of course but somehow I don't think I am in the best place to review papers on such techniques when I have never used them myself. Just reading about it and trying to understand doesn't seem to help. I think that I would need some expertise in the methodology to be able to review how others have used it. The job has turned out to be a nightmare! Sorry this has turned into a rant. Nice to correspond with you again after a while!

All done! Once I got going, it wasn't hard after all! Thanks anyway :)

Is there a simple way to easily tell if a study is using EFA vs CFA? I don't use either of these techniques but need to assess methodological quality on a few papers. So I've read up on what they are, and why they are used. Problem is, papers say things like "factor analysis was run" but don't always explicitly say whether it was confirmatory or exploratory. I know the general background of what each method does - ie. to test a hypothesised structure (CFA) or to come up with a structure (EFA). But this isn't really helping, as it seems as though it could be either (i.e., testing or coming up with a structure for a scale they are interested in)!
Cheers

Probably an inexperienced question... any help appreciated...

I'm applying for funding to attend a conference and the form is asking what benefits of me attending the conference are - and it wants a few hundred words justification. My main benefit is that I will get to disseminate this piece of research. Obviously I will meet people and hear about others work. And I will talk with people and establish new connections for possible future collaborations. But how to turn that into a detailed response of a few hundred words? Maybe I should cite particular groups who I know will be there whose work is of interest to me?! Any ideas would be helpful.