Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 1495–1504 | Cite as

Randomness is problematic for social science research purposes

  • Merton S. Krause
Article

Abstract

Mathematically defined random chance requires that every possible alternative sampling or assignment outcome has an equal or known probability of occurring. This is very different than haphazard chance for the outcomes of which there are no such statistical expectations. Because random chance cannot be sufficiently ensured for social science research purposes is logically arguable, what is actually relied upon must be haphazard chance. This needs to be made clear for several key aspects of social science research methodology: generalizing from samples, making treatment contrasts unbiased by unmeasured on subject dimensions, meta-analysis, interpreting comparative experiments’ residual outcome variance and so their statistical significance testing, the meaning of psychological measurement unreliability and of latent variables, and the imputation of missing data.

Keywords

Haphazard Random Statistically expected values Residual outcome variance Case sampling and assignment 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baker, J.R., Yardley, J.K., McCaul, K.: Characteristics of responding-, non-responding-, and refusing-parents in an adolescent lifestyle choice study. Eval. Rev. 25(6), 605–618 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beltrami, E.: What is Random? Chance and Order in Mathematics and Life. Springer, New York (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, D.J.: Randomness. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Brown, G.S.: Probability and Scientific Inference. Longmans, Green, London (1957)Google Scholar
  5. Chen, S.: Random number generators go public. Science 360, 1383–1384 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dattalo, P.: Strategies to Approximate Random Sampling and Assignment. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dattalo, P.: Ethical dilemmas in sampling. J. Soc. Work Values Ethics 7(1), 1–12 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Di Franco, G.: An alternative procedure for imputing missing data based on principal components analysis. Qual. Quant. 48(3), 1149–1163 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feller, W.: An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, vol. 1, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York (1968)Google Scholar
  10. Ganguli, M., Mendelsohn, A., Lytle, M., Dodge, H.: A follow-up comparison of study participants and refusers within a rural elderly population. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 53(6), M465–M470 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gellert, W., Küstner, H., Hellwich, M., Kästner, H. (eds.): The VNR Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York (1977)Google Scholar
  12. Hacking, I.: Logic of Statistical Inference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hedges, L.V.: Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments. Psychol. Bull. 92, 490–499 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Howard, K.I., Krause, M.S., Orlinsky, D.E.: The attrition dilemma. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 54, 106–110 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard, K.I., Krause, M.S., Saunders, S.M., Kopta, S.M.: Trials and tribulations in the meta-analysis of treatment differences: comment on Wampold et al. (1997). Psychol. Bull. 122, 221–225 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kish, L.: Survey Sampling. Wiley, New York (1965)Google Scholar
  17. Krause, M.S.: How the psychotherapy research community must work toward measurement validity and why. J. Clin. Psychol. 61, 269–283 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krause, M.S.: Significance testing and clinical trials. Psychotherapy 48, 217–222, 234–236 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. Krause, M.S.: Measurement validity is fundamentally a matter of definition, not correlation. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 16, 391–400 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krause, M.S.: The incompatibility of fully specifying linear causal models and assuming that residual dependent variable variance is random. Qual. Quant. 47, 3201–3204 (2013a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krause, M.S.: The data analytic implications of human psychology’s dimensions being ordinally scaled. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 17, 318–325 (2013b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krause, M.S.: Case sampling for psychotherapy practice, theory, and policy guidance: qualities and quantities. Psychother. Res. 26, 530–544 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krause, M.S.: The scientific study of the qualities of individual human lives, rather than of their average quantities in aggregations of lives. Qual. Quant. 52, 1315–1329 (2018a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krause, M.S.: Mathematical expression and sampling issues of treatment-contrasts: beyond significance testing and meta-analysis to clinically useful research synthesis. Psychother. Res. 28(1), 58–75 (2018b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krause, M.S.: Psychological measuring and measurements: their possible effects on persons measured and unmeasured: reactivity. J. Methods Meas. Soc. Sci. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jmmss/index (2018c)
  26. Krause, M.S., Howard, K.I.: What random assignment does and does not do. J. Clin. Psychol. 59, 751–766 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W.: How we really ought to be comparing treatments for clinical purposes. Psychotherapy 43, 359–361 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krause, M.S., Lutz, W., Bőhnke, J.R.: The role of sampling in clinical trial design. Psychother. Res. 21, 143–151 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Little, R.J., D’Agostino, R., et al.: The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 1355–1360 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Little, R.J., Rubin, D.B.: Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Wiley, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  31. Markides, K.S., Dickson, H.D., Pappas, C.: Characteristics of dropouts in longitudinal research on aging: a study of Mexican Americans and Anglos. Exp. Aging Res. 8(3), 163–167 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michell, J.: Is psychometrics pathological science? Meas. Interdiscip. Res. Perspect. 6, 7–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Michell, J.: The quantity/quality interchange: a blind spot on the highway of science. In: Valsiner, J., Toomela, A. (eds.) Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone Astray?, pp. 45–68. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte (2010)Google Scholar
  34. Nickerson, R.S.: Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol. Methods 5, 241–301 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nickerson, R.S.: The production and perception of randomness. Psychol. Rev. 109, 330–357 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rodgers, J.L.: The bootstrap, the jackknife, and the randomization test: a sampling taxonomy. Multivar. Behav. Res. 34, 441–456 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenthal, R.: Meta-analytic Procedures for Social Research. Sage, Beverly Hills (1984)Google Scholar
  38. Schafer, J.L.: Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. Chapman & Hall, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schafer, J.L., Graham, J.W.: Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol. Methods 7, 147–177 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seaman, S., Galati, J., Jackson, D., Carlin, J.: What is meant by” missing at random”? Stat. Sci. 28, 257–268 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sechrest, L., Davis, M.F., Stickle, T.R., McKnight, P.: Understanding “method” variance. In: Bickman, L. (ed.) Research Design: Donald Campbell’s Legacy, vol. 2, pp. 63–87. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2000)Google Scholar
  42. Stuart, A., Ord, J.K., Arnold, S.: Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics, Volume 2a: Classical Inference and the Linear Model, 6th edn. Arnold, London (1999)Google Scholar
  43. Thompson, M.G., Heller, K., Rody, C.A.: Recruitment challenges in studying late-life depression: do community samples adequately represent depressed older adults? Psychol. Aging 9(1), 121–125 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Volchan, S.B.: What is a random sequence? Am. Math. Mon. 109(1), 46–63 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Worrall, J.: Why there’s no cause to randomize. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 58, 451–488 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merton S. Krause
    • 1
  1. 1.EvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations