Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeClarification for the analysis in Study 1
Posted by mwkraus on 17 Apr 2013 at 21:38 GMT
We read this article with great interest at the University of Illinois for our social psychology journal club today. Our discussion generated a question that I was hoping the authors could help us with: Specifically, Study 1 describes using a multi-level analysis but the actual text doesn't provide enough detail to help the reader understand what the levels of analysis actually are (e.g., injuries nested in players that are nested in teams). Thanks in advance for the reply!
RE: Clarification for the analysis in Study 1
SophieTrawalter replied to mwkraus on 19 Apr 2013 at 18:00 GMT
Thanks for your interest in our work. I'm delighted to hear folks are reading not just our paper but psychology papers in PLoS ONE. Very exciting.
So yes. We constructed a 3-level model to account for the nesting of injuries within players within teams. As you can probably imagine, player and team accounted for some chunk of the variance. We also constructed more complex models accounting for time (both year and week within the season). The pattern of results held; race remained a significant predictor of game status.