The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Unit of Analysis: Group Means versus Individual Observations
Abstract
This paper shows that the common recommendation to use group means when there may be nonindependence among observational units is unnecessary, unduly restrictive, impoverishes the analysis, and limits the questions that can be addressed in a study. When random factors are properly identified and included in the analysis, the results (Fs and critical Fs) are identical in balanced ANOVA designs, irrespective of whether group means or individual observations are employed. The use of individual observations also allows the exploration of other interesting questions pertaining to interaction and generalizability. In addition, the pooling strategy can be considered. Thus, the question of the proper experimental unit or unit of analysis for treatment effects is answered directly, correctly, and implicitly when the proper statistical model is employed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Glass, G. V., Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543042003237 · Cited by 1,826
Cited by
Determinants of Continuity in Conventional Industrial Channel Dyads
Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.8.4.310 · Cited by 2,368
Socioeconomic Status and Obesity: A Review of the Literature
Sobal, J., & Stunkard, A. J. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.260 · Cited by 2,346
Intraclass Correlation Values for Planning Group-Randomized Trials in Education
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373707299706 · Cited by 847
Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1997) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.2.2.173 · Cited by 636
Prevention of depressive symptoms in school children
Jaycox, L. H., Reivich, K. J., Gillham, J., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1994) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90160-0 · Cited by 561
Metadata
- Authors
- Hopkins, K. D.
- Venue
- American Educational Research Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1982
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5
- ISSN
- 0002-8312 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015981771
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Unit of Analysis: Group Means versus Individual Observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1162366
- The paper
- Hopkins, K. D. (1982). The Unit of Analysis: Group Means versus Individual Observations. American Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162366
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.