I got a paper rejected at a conference with the following comment:
The used method for the analysis is correct, but I find it strange that the authors evaluate the results as a 4-condition experiment instead of the 2x2 experiment they set up. This makes their analysis of the interaction effect a bit clumsy, and they end up testing all possible combinations of conditions (which means they should have done a Bonferroni correction). A factorial analysis would have been much more straightforward.
As I do not have the possibility to respond, can anybody explain what the reviewer meant with:
the authors evaluate the results as a 4-condition experiment instead of the 2x2 experiment they set up
A factorial analysis would have been much more straightforward.
Can anybody explain what a factorial analysis is, and how a 4-condition experiment differ from a 2x2 experiment.
My experiment consist of 2x2 within-subjects design. For example A (yes/no) x B (yes/no), where AxB (no/no) is the control condition. I chose to perform a repeated measures logistic regression analyses as I have a:
- Within-subjects design
- A four level categorical IV (yes/yes, yes/no, no/yes, no/no)
- A two level categorical DV (yes/no)
To test significance I contrasted the categories against a reference. I varied the reference to asses differences between categories. I don't see the "clumsiness" the reviewer implies, as this is the way I've learned it using a regression.