NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED354570
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 1992-Nov
Pages: 23
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: N/A
A Comparative Analysis of the Predictive Validity of Questionnaires and Philosophy Statements in CEDA Debate.
Dudczak, Craig A.; And Others
A study assessed the predictive validity of two substantially different instruments (a questionnaire or a philosophy statement) which may be used to predict critics' ballot behavior in Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) debate. Questionnaires were distributed to 29 debate tournaments across the United States for completion by critics judging at those tournaments. Judge philosophy statements were retrieved from among those solicited by the CEDA national tournaments. A total of 87 subjects completed the questionnaire with 34 having a minimum of 6 or more written ballots. Usable philosophy statements for 24 of these respondents were gathered. Hence, 34 sets of subjects were used in analysis of questionnaire-ballot correlations and 26 sets of subjects were used to assess philosophy-ballot correlations. Results indicated that: (1) when critics were the unit of analysis, "new arguments" had high negative predictive validity and "inherency" had high predictive validity; and (2) if ballots were taken as the unit of analysis, philosophies were substantially better predictors, but if ballots by critics are combined to make the critic the unit of analysis, the effect disappeared. Findings are limited by the small number of discriminants which emerged as significant and reliable. (A figure representing the construct and technique matrix of tools and eight tables of data are included. (Contains 16 references.) (RS)
Publication Type: Speeches/Meeting Papers; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A