ࡱ> VXSTU` 4`bjbj 4blJJJJ***>ffff|>hiii$hZ*ieiiiJJmipJ*ih@*~ @If٪ 4 0 *iiiiiiiiiiiiii>>>DZ_@>>>_>>>JJJJJJ Quiz #3 Prep For each story, tell the type of research design. For each story, identify the specific role of each of the following variables extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence with the treatment being given subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapist subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobia subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobia subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patient subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1a. The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). The four treatment options were described to volunteer participants who were obtained from the waiting list at a prominent local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics (individuals with other or combined types of social phobia were referred to other clinics in the area), all of whom agreed they would participate in whichever condition to which they were randomly assigned. All the patients were given the appropriate treatment for 60 twice-a-week 50 minute treatments; all treatment sessions were given in the therapists office . Patients were randomly assigned to one of the eight therapists, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. 1b. The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). The four treatment options were described to volunteer participants who were obtained from the waiting list at a prominent local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics (individuals with other or combined types of social phobia were referred to other clinics in the area), all of whom agreed they would participate in whichever condition to which they were randomly assigned. The researchers formed groups of four patients with equivalent "phobia extent" scores as part of their assignment process. All the patients were given the appropriate treatment for 60 twice-a-week 50 minute treatments; all treatment sessions were given in the therapists office . Patients were randomly assigned to one of the eight therapists, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. 1c.The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). Participants were taken from four different communities each of which had a local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics. Each clinic was chosen because was currently using one of the four procedures under study. Two of the eight therapists were randomly assigned to each community clinic, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. 1d. The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). Participants were taken from four different communities each of which had a local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics. Each clinic was randomly assigned to provide one of the four procedures under investigation. The researchers formed groups of four patients, one from each of the communities, with equivalent "phobia extent" scores as part of their assignment process. All the patients were given the appropriate treatment for 60 twice-a-week 50 minute treatments; all treatment sessions were given at the community clinic . Two of the eight therapists were randomly assigned to each community clinic, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. 1e.The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). Participants were taken from four different communities each of which had a local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics. Each clinic was randomly assigned to provide one of the for procedures under investigation. All the patients were given the appropriate treatment for 60 twice-a-week 50 minute treatments; all treatment sessions were given at the community clinic . Two of the eight therapists were randomly assigned to each community clinic, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. 1f. The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a peer-support control condition). Participants were taken from four different communities each of which had a local clinic that specialized in the treatment of social speaking phobiics. Each clinic was chosen because was currently using one of the four procedures under study. The researchers formed groups of four patients, one from each of the communities, with equivalent "phobia extent" scores as part of their assignment process. All the patients were given the appropriate treatment for 60 twice-a-week 50 minute treatments; all treatment were given in the therapists . Two of the eight therapists were randomly assigned to each community clinic, each of whom delivered a single type of treatment. Before providing treatment, each therapist was given a 80-hour training program covering the treatment procedure which they would be using, and were certified as prepared to deliver that treatment as determined by the national governing board for that treatment. For the following: a) Identify the type of design, b) identify any attempts to provide initial equivalence, c) decide if those attempts control all or only some subject variables, d) identify any attempts to provide ongoing equivalence, and e) decide if there are any ongoing equivalence confounds. 2. While planning a study of the different kinds of social anxiety training, I ran into some good luck. I found that I would be allowed to randomly assign patients to the type of therapy they received (individual therapy, group discussion, group role-play or pair role-play conditions), although each client was permitted to interview as many of the 16 therapists they wanted to and select who would deliver their treatment (all of the therapists were trained and certified by the researcher). During their initial session all the therapists obtained the gender and for how long the person has been diagnosed as having a problem with social anxiety, variables that I used to form sets of subjects matched across the IV conditions. At the last of the 12 weekly meetings, each participant completed a standardized interview used to provide the DV. The interviewer (who did all the interviews) did not know which type of therapy each participant had completed. 3. The study was designed to examine the relative effectiveness of two anti-depressant drugs with a no-drug control. One of the drugs (Drug1) is well-known and the appropriate dosage was used in the study. For the other drug, however, there has been little research concerning appropriate dosages, and so a few were used in this study (Drug2-10, Drug2-25 Drug2-40). Subjects were randomly selected from a single hospital. Because of a known interaction between the two drugs, those patients who had previously been medicated with Drug1 were randomly assigned to either the Control (who were given injections of sterile water rather than any drug) or Drug1 group (to help control for the possible confounding of the drug interaction), while previously unmedicated patients were randomly assigned to one of the Drug2 conditions. There were 10 subjects in each condition. During the three months of the treatment period, there were two weeks during which the company which produced the Drug2 delivered inadequate amounts to provide each patient with the prescribed dosage. Faced with several alternatives, the researchers decided to withhold the drug from the Drug2-40 group during these weeks and to extend their treatment period to two weeks after the others to eliminate any possible confounding. The DV was assessed by clinical interview at the end of the treatment period; for the DV, smaller scores mean less depressed. 4. A caring, loving psychologist who teaches both undergraduate and graduate research courses ran a study to examine the changes in students valuation of the information acquired during their junior level methods courses as they progressed through their senior level courses and onto their graduate education (naturally there are no hidden messages and the data are real -- sure!). Students who finished their undergraduate degrees and got their Masters degrees during the four years of the study were the subjects. Each student was asked to rate the "overall value" of their undergraduate methods course to their current coursework and/or research using a 10-point scale at the end of their junior and senior undergraduate years and at the end of their first and second years of graduate school. 5. An educational psychologist wanted to examine the relationship between motivation and performance. The final exam in her EDPSY421 class was chosen to obtain the data. Subject's scores were examined and they were divided into two groups, those who could improve their letter grade with a good score on the final ("more motivated" group) vs. those who could not improve their letter grade (even with a perfect score -- "less motivated" group). All subjects were notified whether or not they could improve their letter grade in writing (with no mention of the study being conducted). It was hypothesized that the group of those students who could improve their grade would have a higher average score on the final exam than the group of students who could not. 6. In a related study conducted by another member of the same department to test the same hypothesis, subjects were randomly assigned to a "motivated" and an "unmotivated" condition. All students in his class were told that they would have to take a second version of the examination, the "more motivated" group was told that they had performed poorly and were being given an opportunity to improve their scores, the "less motivated" group was told that the computer scoring device had eaten their test papers which must be retaken. 2a.    Tell the k, n, df and error values that would be used to compute the LSDmmd for these results. What is the LSDmmd value? Based on the LSDmmd, do these results support the research hypothesis that those with <5 friends will have the lowest self esteem, but that there will be no difference among the other conditions? Carefully explain your answer For each pairwise comparison you just completed, tell the effect size, the possible statistical decision errors you might have committed and estimate the probability of having made that/those error(s What are the a priori and post hoc experiment-wise alpha estimates for this set of comparisons Compute the lower and upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the comparison of <5 and 5-10 friends conditions? What would be the corresponding NHST What sample size would you want if you planned to replicate this study and wanted to be sure you had 90% power to reject H0: for the 1-5 and 10+ friends conditions pairwise comparison? Tell the both the number of participants you would want in each condition of the study (n) and total number of participants you would want in the study (N). Do you suggest this sample size for the study? Explain why or why not. 2b.    Tell the k, n, df and error values that would be used to compute the LSDmmd for these results. What is the LSDmmd value? k=3, N=387, so n = N/k = 129, MSerror = 73.875 & dferror =384 for LSD = 2.097 Based on the LSDmmd, do these results support the research hypothesis that those who plan to find work study the least and those who plan to go to professional school study the most? Carefully explain your answer For each pairwise comparison you just completed, tell the effect size, the possible statistical decision errors you might have committed and estimate the probability of having made that/those error(s What are the a priori and post hoc experiment-wise alpha estimates for this set of comparisons Compute the lower and upper bound of the 95% confidence interval for the comparison of graduate school and professional school conditions? What would be the corresponding NHST What sample size would you want if you planned to replicate this study and wanted to be sure you had 90% power to reject H0: for the find work vs. graduate school conditions pairwise comparison? Tell the both the number of participants you would want in each condition of the study (n) and total number of participants you would want in the study (N). Do you suggest this sample size for the study? Explain why or why not. 3a.    Based on pairwise comparisons(eyeball the follow-ups to the 2x2 pairwise comparisons), do these results support the RH that having more current friends improves the likelihood that one of your current friends is your best friend ever? Report your analysis values and results. Carefully explain your answer. For each pairwise comparison you just completed, tell the effect size, the possible statistical decision errors you might have committed and estimate the probability of having made that/those error(s). What is the experiment-wise alpha for this set of comparisons? What are the a priori and post hoc experiment-wise alpha estimates for this set of comparisons? What sample size would you want if you planned to replicate this study and wanted to be sure you had 80% power to reject H0: for the 5-10 friend and >10 friend pairwise comparison? Tell the both the number of participants you would want in each condition of the study (n) and total number of participants you would want in the study (N). 3b.    Based on pairwise comparisons(eyeball the follow-ups to the 2x2 pairwise comparisons), do these results support the RH that both Cognitive and Behavioral therapies work better than peer support? Report your analysis values and results. Carefully explain your answer. For each pairwise comparison you just completed, tell the effect size, the possible statistical decision errors you might have committed and estimate the probability of having made that/those error(s). What is the experiment-wise alpha for this set of comparisons? What are the a priori and post hoc experiment-wise alpha estimates for this set of comparisons? What sample size would you want if you planned to replicate this study and wanted to be sure you had 80% power to reject H0: for the peer support and Cognitive Therapy pairwise comparison? Tell the both the number of participants you would want in each condition of the study (n) and total number of participants you would want in the study (N). Answers 1a. BG True Experiment all subject variables controlled by RA/balancing extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/ the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1b. BG True Experiment with a priori matching initial phobia controlled by matching, all others by RA extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1c. BG Non-experiment all subject variables are confounds extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/ the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1d. BG Quasi-Experiment with post hoc matching -- initial phobia controlled by matching, all others are confounds extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/ the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemAmount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1e. BG Quasi-experiment all subject variables are confounds extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/ the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 1f. BG Non-Experiment with post hoc matching phobia is controlled, all others are confounds extent of phobia at beginning of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemextent of phobia at end of treatment subject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemTherapist's competence w/ the treatment being givensubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemNumber of treatment "contact hours" with therapistsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemamount of prior treatment for phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemmotivation to reduce their phobiasubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problemType of therapy delivered to each patientsubject manipulated IV DV confound control ongoing eq problem balanced eliminated held constant randomized matched initial eq problem 2. a) BG True Experiment with a priori matching, b) RA & a priori matching using gender & time since diagnosis, c) is expected to give initial equivalence, d) all therapists were trained and certified by the researcher & all IV conditions had 12 weekly sessions, e) long-term field experiment makes ongoing equivalence difficult, and participant-selection of therapists is also a problem. 3. a. This involves an conditional (arbitrary) randomization, b) this study will not have initial equivalence, c) no specific procedural controls are mentioned, d) using a long-term field study makes ongoing equivalence difficult and the 2-week delay in completion of the Drug2-40 is a definite confound 4. a) this is some sort of weird hybrid design (Ive used designs like this and they are a datamine, but an analytic nightmare). If everybody who is taking courses during the four years provided data, so the first year you get BG data from Jr, Sr, 1st year grad and 2nd year grad, you also get complete WG data from the group that is Jrs during the first year, and the complicting part -- you get incomplete WG data from everybody else, b) no attempts at initial equivalence are mentioned, c) no attempts at ongoing equivalence are mentioned, d) no hope of ongoing equivalence here. 5. a) this is a non-experiment participants are assigned to groups based on their previous course performance, b) nothing was done to provide initial equivalence, c) nor ongoing equivalence, d) ongoing equivalence is way shot. 6. a) This is a BG True Experiment (with profound ethical problems), b) the randomization is intended to provide initial equivalence of all subject variables, c) nothing is mentioned regarding ongoing equivalence, d) and so, this study will definitely have ongoing equivalence problems. k-group ANOVA 2a. k=3, N=214, so n = N/k = 71.33, MSerror = 775.503 & dferror = 211 for LSD = 9.232 <5 vs. 5-10<5 vs. 10+5-10 vs. 10+Mean dif< 5.16< 15.31< 10.15LSD result=<<RH: <<=RH: test using LSDNo supportSupportNo supportThese results provide partial support for the RH:r.09.27.18Stat errorsType II at 70-80% chance (w/ r=.10 and S=71.33*2 = 142.66, power is between .20 & .30)Type 1 at 5% (LSD), Type IIIType 1 at 5% (LSD), Type IIIE (probability of committing at least one Type I error in the set of comparions)a priori = 3 * .05 (LSD) = .15 post hoc = 2 (sig) * .05 = .10 or 10%95% CI-.41 to 14.39 Retain H0:6.08 to 24.54 Reject H0:.92 to 19.38 Reject H0: Using r = .25 and Power = .90, S = 160, n = S / 2 = 80, and N = k * n = 240. Since this is the largest of the pairwise effects, basing the power on it is not a good idea the other pairwise comparisons are likely to be underpowered. 2b. k=3, N=387, so n = N/k = 129, MSerror = 73.875 & dferror =384 for LSD = 2.097 work vs. gradwork vs. prograd vs. proMean dif< 3.78< 5.76< 1.97LSD result<<=RH: <<<RH: test using LSDSupportSupportNo supportThese results provide partial support for the RH:r.21.32.11Stat errorsType 1 at 5% (LSD), Type IIIType 1 at 5% (LSD), Type IIIType II at 70-80% chance (w/ r=.10 and S=129*2 = 158 power is between .20 & .30)E (probability of committing at least one Type I error in the set of comparions)a priori = 3 * .05 (LSD) = .15 post hoc = 2 (sig) * .05 = .10 or 10%95% CI1.66 to 5.899 Retain H0:3.64 to 7.879 Reject H0:-.15 to 4.089 Reject H0: Using r = .20 and Power = .90, S = 255, n = S / 2 = 128, and N = k * n = 384. Since this is not the smallest of the pairwise effects, basing the power on it is not a good idea the pairwise comparison for grade vs. pro is likely to be underpowered (though chasing it would be expensive). kxk X 3a. <5 vs. 5-10<5 vs. 10+5-10 vs. 10+% yes dif65% vs. 36%65% vs. 65%36% vs. 65%2x2 X result15.52, p < .01.001, nonsig10.56, p < .01RH: <<<RH: test using LSDNo support (backward) No supportSupportThese results provide partial support for the RH:r.29.003.28Stat errorsType 1 at 1% Type IIIType II at >80% chance (r & S not on table)Type 1 at 1% Type IIIE (probability of committing at least one Type I error in the set of comparions)a priori = 3 * .05 = .15 post hoc = 2 (sig) * .01 = .02 or 2% With r - .25 (rounded down from .28) and 80% power, S = 120, so n = 60 and N = 180. This is reasonable with this sample size we also have a good chance of rejecting H0: for the <5 vs. 5-10 comparison. The effect size of the remaining comparison (<5 vs. >10) is vanishingly small, and would be very expensive to chase. 3b. Peer vs. CogPeer vs. BehCog vs. Beh% improve dif80% vs. 88%80% vs. 47%88% vs. 47%2x2 X result        *+,aYb~ijR"w&x&y&z&L'm'&(ֻΰְֻֻֻ֥֒h(CJaJhh#CJaJhhk%ICJaJhhCJaJh_GCJaJhhCJaJhECJaJhhECJaJ hk%ICJhhk%I5CJaJhh5CJaJ9 @3 A Skd$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgd|egdEgdk%I-`3` _  NSkd$$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgd|eSkd$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la  z   Skd$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgd|e +,NSkd$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgd|eSkdH$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la,Q"R"v&w&*+++V,gdgdEgdk%ISkdl$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgd|e&(9(u()++U,V,W,Z,c,=.\.0000000 1 1~11+2h2i22ĹıĦyhhhYJYhhCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJ h_Ghs=CJOJQJ^JaJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJhh.wCJaJh.whECJaJh.wCJaJh.whs=CJaJh.whCJaJhh|eCJaJhECJaJh|eCJaJhhCJaJhhECJaJV,W,0045588;;I<<========= $Ifgd $7$8$H$Ifgds= $7$8$H$Ifgd[Egd  gd  gdgdgdE22M3N333;4<4%5&55555,6-666)7*777#8$8^8~888888K9L9999:::::˺qqqqch_GCJOJQJ^JaJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJhCJaJhi7CJOJQJ^JaJ hhCJOJQJ^JaJ hhCJOJQJ^JaJhhCJaJhhCJOJQJaJhhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJ&:);*;;;;;9=:===================>>t\tVP hCJ hCJ/jhW\hs=5CJOJQJU\^JaJ hs=5CJOJQJ\^JaJ h[E5CJOJQJ\^JaJ/jhW\h[E5CJOJQJU\^JaJ hs=CJ h[ECJ h]WDCJ hi7CJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJhCJ^JaJh_GCJOJQJ^JaJ h_GhCJOJQJ^JaJ=====>>>|>}>~>>>>e?gds= & Fgd[EgdRkdO $$Ifl0*D t44 la $Ifgd $7$8$H$Ifgds=>|>}>~>>>>>>>D?d?e?f?g?h?i?2@3@4@6@7@@@@@@@AA?A@AAA & Fgd[Egds=h^hgdqAABACADABBBBBBBBBBBBBBB $Ifgd|e $7$8$H$Ifgd|e $7$8$H$Ifgd?gd}~ & Fgd[Egds=BBBBBBBBuCvCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDnErEEE1F2FYFdFFFG6GAGG>H?HIHJHص{sh3mFCJaJhxJCJaJh?:WCJaJh?CJaJh,BCJaJht5CJaJh,B5CJaJh}~CJaJhs=h}~CJaJ/jhW\h?5CJOJQJU\^JaJ h}~CJ h}~5CJOJQJ\^JaJ h?5CJOJQJ\^JaJ*BBBBBuCvCCCCCCDDDDDDh^hgd,B & Fgd}~gd}~Rkd^$$Ifl0*D t44 laDnEoEpEqErEsEtEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFF>H & Fgd?:Wgd}~ & Fgd}~>H?H@HAHBHCHDHEHFHGHHHIHOHQHRHSHUHVHWH $IfgdxJ $7$8$H$IfgdChh^hgdxJh^hgd?:WJHOHPHRHSHTHVH[HHFIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJKK K K KKKKKKfLgLjLkLpLrLsLǯǤǤǤǤq/j hW\h?:W5CJOJQJU\^JaJh3mFCJaJhxJhChCJaJh{MCJaJhxJhxJCJaJ/jhW\hCh5CJOJQJU\^JaJhxJCJaJ hCh5CJOJQJ\^JaJ/jhW\hCh5CJOJQJU\^JaJhChCJaJ(WHXHYHZH[HIIIIIIIIJJJJJJ & FgdChh^hgdxJQkd $$Ifl0* t644 laJJJJ K K K K KKKKKfLgLhLiLpLqLrLtLuLvL $Ifgd|e $7$8$H$Ifgd?:W $7$8$H$Ifgd|eh^hgdCh & FgdChh^hgdxJsLuLvLwL{LLLLAMMMMMMMMMNNNNOOOOOOOePjPkPrPsPPPϾ竳碙糫xofZhv~'hiEs5CJaJhiEs5CJaJhs=5CJaJhv~'hv~'5CJaJh{M5CJaJh{MhXT5CJaJhXT5CJaJhCh5CJaJh?:WCJaJhxJhChCJaJ hCh5CJOJQJ\^JaJ/j^%hW\h?:W5CJOJQJU\^JaJhChCJaJ h?:W5CJOJQJ\^JaJ"vLxLyLzL{L|L}L~LLLMMMMx & FgdChh^hgdChQkd($$Ifl0 * t644 la $Ifgd|e $7$8$H$Ifgd|e $7$8$H$IfgdCh MMMMMNNNNNNNOOOOOOOePfPgPhPiPjPsPtPh^hgd?:W & FgdChh^hgdChtPPPPcQQQQQpRRSkdJ)$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdth^hgd?:W PPP;QCQcQkQQQQQR)R,RRR%S3ScSkSSS?TKTkT~TTTT:UBUUUUUUUCVKVVVVVVVeWqWwWzW;X*CJaJhv~'hiEsCJaJhiEshiEs5CJaJhiEs5CJaJhv~'CJaJhiEsCJaJhhv~'CJaJhv~'hv~'>*CJaJhv~'hv~'CJaJ*CJaJhhiEsCJaJhiEshiEs>*CJaJhv~'hiEsCJaJhiEshiEsCJaJCZZZZp[[[\\NSkdl.$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtSkd-$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la\\\ ]]]^^(^NSkd/$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd.$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdt(^^__9__` `NSkd0$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd"0$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdt `!`"`_`p``aqaraaab~bSkdF1$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdth^hgd?:W ~bbbb+ccccEdNSkdj2$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtSkd1$$Ifl0 *0  t644 labbc cMcZccc ddd(d2dDdgdtddde e*e2eRe_eeeeeee f)f3f;f[fhfffffggggggOhPh|hhhh辵hiEsh(>*CJaJhv~'h(>*CJaJhv~'h(CJaJhiEsh(5CJaJh(5CJaJh(CJaJhiEshiEsCJaJhv~'hiEsCJaJhiEshiEs>*CJaJhhiEsCJaJhv~'hiEs>*CJaJ3EdddddReeeeNSkd3$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd2$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdte[fffflgggNSkd4$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd 4$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtggPhah|hhbicitiijojSkdD5$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdth^hgd(h^hgd?:W hhhhhhhi+i6i>iEiOiaiciiiiijjjjjj>kKkkkklll#l5lXlelllllmmm#mCmPmzmmmmmmnn$n,nLnYnnnnnȼȼȴȼȼȼȼȩȼȼhiEsh(>*CJaJhh|rCJaJh(CJaJhv~'h(>*CJaJhh(CJaJh(h(>*CJaJhiEsh(CJaJhv~'h(CJaJh(h(CJaJ>ojpjjjkkkk6lNSkdh6$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtSkd5$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la6lllllCmmmmNSkd7$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd6$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtmLnnnn]oooNSkd8$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd8$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdtnnoo ooo p p8p@pupvppppppppppp qqqEqNqvqyqCrErrrrrrrssssssssst!tttttttt u6uĹĹĹĢĹĭĎĢĢhiEsh(>*CJaJh(CJaJhiEsh(CJaJh(h(>*CJaJh(h(CJaJhv~'h(CJaJhiEs5CJaJh(5CJaJhiEsCJaJhv~'h(>*CJaJhh(CJaJ8o pp8ppqq0qEqq+rSkdB9$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdth^hgd?:W +r,rCr`rrFsGszssNSkdf:$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtSkd9$$Ifl0 *0  t644 las`tatrtttmunuuNSkd;$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd:$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdt6uAuZuluuuuuuuvv?vJvcvuvvvvvwwxxQx\xdxexoxxxxxxxxxxxx!y*yRyUyz!zNz\zzzzzh{t{{{{{{{{{c|Ӿ곧꧳곧ӟӳӳӧh(CJaJh(h(>*CJaJh(h(CJaJh(5CJaJhv~'h(>*CJaJhh(CJaJhiEsh(>*CJaJhv~'h(CJaJhiEsh(CJaJ>uvvvwvvwwwNSkd<$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd<$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdtwwwwxxxx y!yyzSkd@=$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdth^hgd?:W zzz$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $IfgdtSkd=$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la{<|=|N|c||I}J}l}NSkd?$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd>$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdtc|k|||||||}}6}H}l}t}}}}}}}~&~?~Q~~~~~def -/hƽtthih_G5CJH*aJh_G5CJaJ#hh5CJOJQJ^JaJhh.wCJaJhh.w5CJaJh.w5CJaJh(5CJaJhh(CJaJhiEsh(CJaJhiEsh(>*CJaJhv~'h(CJaJhv~'h(>*CJaJ(l}}R~S~}~~cdeNIgd.wSkd@$$Ifl0 *0  t644 laSkd@$$Ifl0 *0  t644 la $Ifgdtef ijTUu $$Ifa$gdtgd_G  gdgd.whijkTUtXj78üõrriaiULULUh0W5CJaJhqh0W5CJaJhtCJaJht5CJaJhqhq56CJaJhqhq5CJH*aJh5CJaJhqhq5CJaJhq5CJaJhk-5CJaJ hq5CJ h_G5CJ hk-5CJ hi75CJh_Gh_G5CJ^JaJh_G5CJ^JaJh_G5CJaJhih_G5CJaJ'^UIII $$Ifa$gdt $Ifgdtkd>A$$Ifl\xt t0644 la'(3579^UIII $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtkdA$$Ifl\xt t0644 la9:?ACE^UIII $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtkdB$$Ifl\xt t0644 laEFYdlw^UIII $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtkdB$$Ifl\xt t0644 lawxy^UI $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtkdB$$Ifl\xt t0644 la{ooo $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtzkdiC$$Ifl0xtp t0644 laLJ<v^UIII $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtkdC$$Ifl\xt t0644 laX^UII $$Ifa$gdt $Ifgdtkd7D$$Ifl\xt t0644 la'2?J{oooooo $$Ifa$gdt $IfgdtzkdD$$Ifl0tx t0644 laJKLM89:;?@^YYYYYYYYgdqkdE$$Ifl\xt t0644 la @DkdtE$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXTgdqh^hgdtƋʋ͋ыՋ؋ ^`adeh܌Hbzȏ=NaА$JKLQU`almy{hqh{M5CJaJh{M5CJaJh0WCJaJhqh0W56CJaJhqh0W5CJH*aJhqh0W5CJaJh0W5CJaJFċˋҋًڋIkdE$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTRI $IfgdXTkdRF$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXT &^UIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdF$$Ifl\xt t0644 la&'(Z^UI $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkd0G$$Ifl\xt t0644 laZ[]aei{ooo $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTzkdG$$Ifl0xtp t0644 laijv^UIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdG$$Ifl\xt t0644 la8^UII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdmH$$Ifl\xt t0644 la8:Hdzȏޏ{oooooo $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTzkdH$$Ifl0tx t0644 laޏ#$^YYTTTTTgdqgd0Wkd;I$$Ifl\xt t0644 la$%1<IJUamRI $IfgdXTkdI$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXTmz{RI7$ 5|$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdJ$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXTޑjnrz~"$<@DVX\#2>ADǕ˕֕וL L갤UhqhXT5CJaJhXT5CJaJh{Mh{M5CJaJhqh{M56CJaJhqh{M5CJH*aJhf,5CJaJh{M5CJaJhqh{M5CJaJ@^UIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdJ$$Ifl\xt t0644 laԑ^UIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdJ$$Ifl\xt t0644 lad^UI $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdfK$$Ifl\xt t0644 ladfjr|{ooo $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTzkdK$$Ifl0xtp t0644 la̒$BT^UIIIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkd4L$$Ifl\xt t0644 laTV@^UII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdL$$Ifl\xt t0644 la@ABCDvh^hgd{MgdqzkdM$$Ifl0tx t0644 la ˕וRI $IfgdXTkdqM$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXT LL)LRI7$ 5|$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdM$$Ifl\xt t0644 la $$Ifa$gdXT.409, nonsig3.779, nonsig6.74, p < .01RH: <<No RH:RH: test using LSDNo support  No supportThese results provide no support for the RH:r.11.33 .43Stat errorsType II at >80% chance (w/ r=.10 and S=(51/3)*2 = 34, power is <.20)Type II at 60% chance (w/ r=.30 and S=(51/3)*2 = 34, power is =.40)E (probability of committing at least one Type I error in the set of comparions)a priori = 2 * .05 = .10 post hoc = 0 sig, so 0% With r = .10 and power = .80, S = 781, so n = 391 and N = 1173. While this is not a tiny effect (.10 = small), it w L LLL(L1L2L3L9LXLYLZL_LiLLLLLLLLLLLLLMM:MNNNNNNNNNNOOOOP`+`,`-`2`3`4`hj7htUhXThXT5CJaJhqhXT56CJaJhqhXT5CJH*aJhXT5CJaJhqhXT5CJaJ2)L*L/L1L3L:L^UIII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdON$$Ifl\xt t0644 la:L;LNLZLfLgL^UIIU $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdN$$Ifl\xt t0644 lagLhLiLL^UI $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkd-O$$Ifl\xt t0644 laLLLLLL{ooo $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTzkdO$$Ifl0xtp t0644 laLLLLMNNO^UII $$Ifa$gdXT $IfgdXTkdjP$$Ifl\xt t0644 laOOOO,`-`.`/`0`1`2`3`4`vtttttth^hgdXTgdqzkdP$$Ifl0tx t0644 la ould be a very expensive effect to chase. 21h:pE/ =!"#$% $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 Dd  0  # A2B//|s$oX8BP `!B//|s$oX8r!P5/ xڥWkA$H?ZO]{ ]ۏm@6T6[f6E0=zK?$xB(<IZq6ɼy޼̛:$Kкԭ_@"?;wMR8ZE1_mg*.ڜ6C3? 8;i&lg)}>f3C&3~:D/wLI:m\FöhEsD!zAD-ۤxn&k8ʶ1/-9:ˢH-*wQbo1]C. PlE\wa"7<#EBEZ`cCQ92L419`iagဍ_gx.X }8cIY)ź dhb\X-y3,p&C1dTy60,Z`c^a qM7dxAVjr S8LE]iEK8r.kfG"ePK# $9U(1IN qU!^ dHPHz=$ @X@kykE];XuW-z/_.P^_v=AVBflkUA ߁^zP|F;`uO&Y+][mпGSgѯTye6\]YʧǸr*GZ|DB7}]:J4BW+RW+ҭ@UnCa'5Iw~'nA\Q>cwo9g~}$A/_&E'Dd  y^a0  # A2Cg(pqb+jkP `!g(pqb+jk5JX xڽWkGvԱCJEZ^Zhh{Hiφk$,=[K>XJ!O()9[(of+9H V7{3.00҄xgbe}3'z6OJ4-NIs# {_U܌aNE6\'BJѼKd#Z o)HhgW˥Uqa$ۭ?pro,D_&=Rr(m\3_d7-N 98>0//Z+sH|;3dS*!MXU~kfs֡;-#G ={U{H=M76PÅK\*aS _ts4~MwcO+զ\LG_TeY'@Jبӻ1uW<SCgмctpIe1%pQT$uPZEn:^%|wY!n'pD"ԕoЄ֕#]ϮM)uO݇*c<сdo\+7~DOVuxwAzLq$Ox]Q~$$If!vh5D5#vD#v:Vl t05D5Dd j ||0  # A2)efVtM:+"P `!efVtM:+z%"5 xڥOGgk͏RHUZ=C+ DJxKl(J/#U9PתתH9H) DvY[Z7>oow80C i#ڥ55&[o+_ݱ4?㭖fE?Ǘ8Ax6³ $؇K9Pɵ#2i~Nٞa&'ڭ[0~jdaٳFL:sVc􄍂:/hVk{ΤL^L~gh8{LR$hZd&MKdҦ`κgx~а c϶3錝aOt9&V1sv@b@ O4$]g |P(߅ <9CkOg7 E5(@XpXexc%ĐP%@Pʛ9U ɕ؏h@ JJŊ )1*v&D*E9 NjT̂*C::xСfY>,Ck'b%~",P9g5+RUVe\X JTYWc8#;L kʌxWx׷׌=ǽZPÒpL p|$8p;Z ,6 d$44SMκyugLF "+Q&k J " DUM5y5Z*}B 8mT&U9|&?&_ zXڨ MZmUC-q]T6*Ck ɶ3]Wݺcv.7"$!VpbqAHHΆ:"#饤}R/Uš?ͩ8JکHo߾y %fWMJc)%RsC'ktQ=7l8 7p3qz({y/$"l՚\H )]-Y?#k!#G898'۴\ES mӞN㈮1:g^ĭS!ϕ\Ew[p (ʥ) X<>9qDvY08,7»8LHi^1Q5C>ǩf`}jި~aKZaK>5jPy%̉m` Vr 8`Cw5V9$@ѵ0lffůK3<0/NTM&T~ _zt}f%-T'WGV+n7LbwU]*N81xXMڧcr^R /.|?RJR׊tH7t~Go_?r9MxĮxzX-=]e鋚s\˯J\>uT!&ῤc}SB(ww;zDIP}HahùnhmDd mrx0  # A2gۧp@r& tP `!gۧp@r& t' 8X| xڕUOoQX(,TSِj.LhL/$X`4=9J] m.*o_^yѩ \d/ƇSlՉ~n/\ˬU+mr>PjIuףiu>į)<"W7@]lu8O*R fN1';}$$If!vh55#v:Vl t065Dd [ 0  # A2VXpoQ IqV=2 P `!*XpoQ IqV=2pXFxڥWAoG; YRKj*Tq\*Ѩi(Y&Xr]'Qz s's(>zZ!R{,1Fofgبki=og;lc&C'gs>uY%81\/0)nϦst]˻W(GOTkr!=5̛F~HV_qO)ZG.% Q{3~tO\浉IwMiKv-vHwZq+ߺ헝Jh/{岷Y7a+}9°X/;ՒW?}DE{1!MOFѶ鲷^NŰMOAc] p*vffM|2q9L߃G]*`FT Ev  2 ҿE^ˠ6Jh oCG?s Ȣ7?̠Z)~_K)~_KG%Sf62#1ÿK{=wiC^0đָNX)J+~mSOD6X +5h Bb`eĄʄU/֫7UL,"a*Q&#D&hޫ:Uӽk@qأ@֞jO| `dg$\}/N+qmNj~M-Ԧ:V*jie1S|g|81&XV^>T`qɽl),}2OlzRh4Wb|m͆69;sRU[voftboʣ ?)}VHI鋕.${+8NGO}85vz{+x:ԍGgXVJ4zX-%}]:}uGD}7`|>}ϱ#TV ʅr+x[ >SDN tPSxo{SAgDd mop0  # A2E5TAwH pR%P `!E5TAwH pRڮ' 8X| xڕUOkQ\]D#E(iAT 5  7V0B.9Qz(-& k?@HItsW+̛݅7o~[390wx|%a|]o!9']ӷ}ooeGU"=K7#/:5 ފrm:3C0ïѭbF\'VU*~tw4n=>į)<wVQuJov C0̦Tc6/x6& fF))QLabzDX|A>ff!){QCzX ?oI}P?OUZ=)1;@1=wGxYqCk8,K OS_->gr}HA;R%-٤> +[aۄV}?MH8I}{ۯuTKMOd/ZŨ<Ϊ`vc+NF2?݋XgfϵKڛ}pw)}|>T_b-ߓd2b~ ] y~T? 3BrfWҞ4;IsWTKV6G.;$$If!vh5x5#vx#v:Vl t065$$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 $$If!vh50 5 #v0 #v :Vl t0650 5 m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh5t5p#vt#vp:Vl t65t5pm$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh5t5p#vt#vp:Vl t65t5pm$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh5t5p#vt#vp:Vl t65t5pm$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh5t5p#vt#vp:Vl t65t5pm$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5m$$If!vh5t555#vt#v:Vl t65t5]$$If!vh55#v#v:Vl t655@@@ k%INormalOJQJ_HmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No Listj@j k%I Table Grid7:V08Z@8  Plain TextOJQJss b @3A_z+, QRvw*#+#V$W$((,--0033I445555555555555666|6}6~6666e7f7g7h7i7j728384858687888888888888<9=9>9?9@9A9B9C9D9:::::::::::::::::::u;v;;;;;;<<<<<<n=o=p=q=r=s=t==========>>>>>>>>>>@?@@@A@B@C@D@E@F@G@H@I@O@Q@R@S@U@V@W@X@Y@Z@[@AAAAAAAABBBBBBBBB C C C C CCCCCfDgDhDiDpDqDrDtDuDvDxDyDzD{D|D}D~DDDEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFGGGGGGGeHfHgHhHiHjHsHtHHHHcIIIIIpJJJJKKKK-LLMM%M:MM N!NCNN)O*OTOO:P;PKLWco|}†Æֆ457;@DEQ_hBCDEF͉ى*+024;<O[ghij=>?ȋɋʋˋklmnopqt0000000 00 0 000 00 0 000 00 0 00 00 0 000 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 00000000000000000000000000000000000 000 0 000 000000 000000 0000000 000000000 000000000 0000000000 00000 0 000 0000000 000000 0000000 0 00000000 0 00000000 0 000000000000000 000 0 000 00000000 000000000 000000000 0000000000 00000 0 000 00000000 0000000 0000000 00000000000 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 0 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0000 00 0 00 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 00000 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 0 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0000 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 00 00 0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 000 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 0000 00 0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 0 00 0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0000000000 0 0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0@0 @0@0 @0 @0@0000000 0 0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0@0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0 @0@0 @0 000000P00003A_z, QRvw*#+#W$((,-34555555555555666h7D9:::::::::::::::::::u;v;;;;;;<<<<<<n=o=p=q=r=s=t==========>>>>>>>>>>@?@E@F@G@H@O@Q@R@S@U@V@W@X@Y@Z@[@AAAiDpDqDrDtDuDvDxDyDzD{D|D}DGeHfHgHhHiHjHHHcIIIIIpJJJJKKKK-LLMM%M:MM N!NCNN)O*OTOO:P;PPPIQQQQQVRRRRRpSSSTTTT UUUVV(VVWW9WWX XpXXYqYrYYYZ~ZZZZ+[[[[E\\\\\R]]]][^^^^l____P`a`|``bacataabobpbbbcccc6dddddCeeeeLffff]gggh8hhii0iEii+j,jCj`jjFkGkzkk`lalrlllmmnmmnvnwnnoooopppp q!qqrrrKL|}†Æֆ@DEQhBCF*+04;<O[hi=>?ȋɋˋklnopt{00 {00{00{00{00 {00 {0 0 {00{0 0{00 @ah5 {0 0 {00{00{00 {00 {00{00{00 {00{00{00{00{00 {00{00{0#0{00 {0&0{00{0(0{00 {0 0{0 0{0 0{0!0{0 0{0!0{0$0 {0!0{0)0**s{0!0{0!0{0 0{0!0y0-0<y000@0@0{0<0=,s@0{0>0 {0>0000{0>0{0>0 {0>0{0>0{0>0?-s0 {0>03?y0>02y0>00{0I07{0I08JD.s{0I07{0>0 {0>0@0@0@0@0@0{0>0{0>0 {0>0{0>0{0>0{0>0{0>0 @0 {0$0{0$0{0$0y0$0y0$0{00{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0{0$0y0$0y0$0y0I07{0$0{00 d;{00{00{00{0$0{00{00{00 {00{00{00(5s{0$0 {00ly00y00y00y00{00{00B;{0$0y00y00{00y00y00 {00{00{00{00{00sy0$0 {00;{00{00{0$0{00{00y00{00 {00{00{00y00 {00 {0 0 {00{0 0y00 @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00 {00{00{00{00y00 {00{00{0#0y00 {0&0y00y0(0y00 {00 {00{00{00y00 y00 {0 0 {00{0 0@ah5  @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00y00{00{00{00y00{00{00{0#0y0>0?{0&0y00y0(0@0T {00 {00{00{00y00 y00 {0 0 {00{0 0@ah5  @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00y00{00y00y00y00{00y00y0#0y0>0?{0&0y00y0(0@0T y0*10{00 {00{00{00y00 y00 {0 0 {00{0 0@ah5  @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00{00{00y00y00y00{00y00y0#0y0>0?y0&0y00y0(0@0T {00 {00{00{00y00 y00 {0 0 {00{0 0@ah5  @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00y00{00y00y00y00{00y00y0#0y0>0?y0&0y00y0(0@0T {00 {00{00{00y00 y00 {0 0 {00{0 0@ah5  @ah5 {0 0 {00{00y00 {00 {00{00y00y00{00y00y00y00{00y00y0#0y0>0?y0&0y00y0(0@0T y0l1y0l10y0h1y080y0j10y0i100y01y010{0B00{0B00{0B00{0B00y0I07 {0G00Hy0I07 {0I02Jy0I07y0K02{0L05M{0I00y0I07 y0N00{0N00{0N00Oy0I07 {0S0:Ty0S05y0I07y0U05{0I07{0S03{0S03y0I07 {00Ky0\03]{0]08^y0]07y0]05y0I07y0\03y0I07 00{014y01y01y00{0B00{0B00{0B00{0B00y0I07 {0G00Hy0I07 {0I02Jy0I07y0K02{0L05M{0I00y0I07 y0N00{0N00{0N00Oy0I07 {0S0:Ty0S05y0I07y0U05y0I07y0S03{0S03y0I07 {00Ky0\03]{0]08^{0]07y0]05{0\03y0I07 y0$0y0$0{01=y01{0B00{0B00{0B00{0B00y0I07 {0G00Hy0I07 y00O{0I07{0I02{0I02Jy0I07y0K02{0L05M{0I00y0I07 y0N00{0N00{0N00Oy0I07 {0S0:Ty0S05y0I07y0U05{0I07{0S03{0S03y0I07 y01y01y00 y0\03{010{0B00{0B00{0B00{0B00y0I07 {0G00Hy0I07 y00O{0I07{0I02{0I02Jy0I07y0K02{0L05M{0I00y0I07 y0N00{0N00{0N00Oy0I07 {0S0:T{0S05y0I07y0U05{0I07{0S03{0S03y0I07 y01y01y00 y0\03{02A00{00{00{000Pw\&(2:>BJHsLPYbhn6uc|h L4`KRTUWZ^aejptx|  ,V,=e?AABD>HWHJvLMtPRTCV;XZ\(^ `~bEdegoj6lmo+rsuwz{l}e'9EwJ@&Zi8ޏ$mdT@)L:LgLLL=MO4`LNOPQSVXY[\]_`bcdfghiklmnoqrsuvwyz{}~3`M8  @ 0(  B S  ?s(*68TVoq} 66G6M6m6s666 ; ;@;F;f;l;;;;;;;XIZIIIeJgJJJKKKKLLM MMMNNNNO OOO/P1P>Q@QQQKRMRRReSgSSSTTTTUUUUVVWWWWXXXXfYhYZZsZuZ ["[[[:\<\\\G]I]]]P^R^^^a_c___``WaYaaadbfbcccc+d-ddd8e:eeeAfCfffRgTggghhiiii j"jjj;k=kkkUlWlllbmdmmmknmnoo|o~oppppqqqqrrssss1t3ttt>u@uuuGvIvvvXwZw|zz{{{{p{s{{{~~~~Z\ހ_fryHR+. ?AˋϋltH P r23(/{~y !!X"Y"|)),,0252I4Q46666 ; ;y;};<<DDvH{H>PCP$X)X__ggooxx$z%zv~}~~~CGˋ lt33333333333333333333333333333333333333333--o6p677::Z;v;I@O@jDrDjHtHHH!NBNPPV'V_XpX]]P`a`ddj|n|u~~~yM;?([v&'5hjˋ ltˋϋlt<007I)zXU0Z*$@ cPu8]Hh hh^h`hH.h 88^8`hH.h L^`LhH.h   ^ `hH.h   ^ `hH.h xLx^x`LhH.h HH^H`hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo  ^ `OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hHxx^x`OJQJ^Jo(hHoHH^H`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH. hh^h`hH) ^`hH) 88^8`hH) ^`hH() ^`hH() pp^p`hH()   ^ `hH. @ @ ^@ `hH.   ^ `hH.h ^`o(hH.h ^`hH.h pLp^p`LhH.h @ @ ^@ `hH.h ^`hH.h L^`LhH.h ^`hH.h ^`hH.h PLP^P`LhH.<cPu@XU07I)                           V]        0/n(Ni70WE#v~'f,`C17j7s=,B]WD[E3mF_Gk%IP-^T?:W|*X|er^h|riEs}~.w?#yXTCh{Mtik-xJqLDE, Rw(55555::::O@S@W@X@pDvD|D}DHHIIIJJKKK-LMM:M N!NCN)O*OTO:P;PPPQQQRRRSSTTTUVV(VWW9WX X_XXqYrYY~ZZZ[[[\\\]]]^^^__P`|`bacaaobpbbcccdddeeefffgg h8hiiEi+j,j`jFkGkzk`lallmmnmmvnwnnoooppp!qrrKLWco|}†Æֆ457;@DEQhBC͉ى*+024;<O[ghij=>?ȋɋt333333@ˋˋ8,Wˋˋ@{|??s@@ @(@@N@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial5"System?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"qhᚦ& ⚦wwGwwG"d24d%%2QHX)?k%I2The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a no-treatment control cond Calvin Garbin Calvin Garbin      Oh+'0  < H T `lt|The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a no-treatment control condCalvin Garbin Normal.dotCalvin Garbin22Microsoft Office Word@^:@@"!@:Hww՜.+,0 hp|  UNLG% The purpose of the study was to compare a new procedure for treating social phobia with the "standard" cognitive-behavioral procedure, and with a procedure which is the combination of the new and old procedures (there was also a no-treatment control cond Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABDEFGHIJLMNOPQRWRoot Entry F IYData 8Q1TableWordDocument4bSummaryInformation(CDocumentSummaryInformation8KCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q