An examination of situational sensitivity in mediumscale interlanguage pragmatics researchby H. P. L. Molloy and Mika Shimura (Temple University Japan) 
Abstract Keywords: : situational sensitivity, production questionnaires, pragmatics, generalizability theory

[ p. 16 ]
Introduction and research background
". . . the literature has little information on the effect of sample sizes or the relative contribution of behavior by individual participants." 
[ p. 17 ]
Method
[ p. 18 ]
Results
[ p. 19 ]
ANOVA table for number of words. Sample sizes: Individuals =259. Situations = 12. All universes assumed to be infinite. 
Ftest degrees of freedom  
Effect  Degrees of Freedom  Sums of squares for mean scores  Sums of squares for score effects  Mean squares  F statistic*  Numerator  Denominator  
Individuals  258  574336.33333  89511.00386  346.94188  9.05723  258  2838  
Situation  11  514561.98456  29736.65508  2703.33228  70.57295  11  2838  
Individuals x situation  2838  712784.00000  108711.01158  38.30550  
Mean  484825.32947  
Total  3107  227958.67053  
Notes: *For generalizability analyses, F statistics should be ignored. 
(from G study)  (from D study)  
Model variance components  Variance components for mean scores  
Effect  Degrees of freedom  Using algorithm/ EMS squares  Percentage of variance accounted for  Standard error  Estimates  Standard error 
Individuals  258  25.7196979  86.4  2.5371492  25.71970  2.53715 
Situation  11  10.2896787  2.9  4.0939562  0.85747  0.34116 
Individuals x Situation  2838  38.3055009  10.7  1.0165224  3.19213  0.08471 
Note: The "algorithm" and "EMS" estimated variance components are identical if there are no negative estimates. 
ANOVA table for number of speech acts. Sample sizes: Individuals =259. Situations = 12. All universes assumed to be infinite. 
Ftest degrees of freedom  
Effect  Degrees of Freedom  Sums of squares for mean scores  Sums of squares for score effects  Mean squares  F statistic*  Numerator  Denominator  
Individuals  258  15440.83333  1846.88224  7.15846  7.42569  258  2838  
Situation  11  13829.25097  235.29987  21.39090  22.18945  11  2838  
Individuals x situation  2838  18412.00000  2735.86680  0.96401  
Mean  13593.95109  
Total  3107  4818.04891  
Notes: *For generalizability analyses, F statistics should be ignored. 
[ p. 20 ]
Table 4. G and Dstudy results for number of speech acts.(from G study)  (from D study)  
Model variance components  Variance components for mean scores  
Effect  Degrees of freedom  Using algorithm/ EMS squares  Percentage of variance accounted for  Standard error  Estimates  Standard error 
Individuals  258  0.5162038  86.5  0.0523633  0.51620  0.05236 
Situation  11  0.0788683  1.0  0.0323947  0.00607  0.00249 
Individuals x Situation  2838  0.9640123  12.4  0.0255822  0.07415  0.00197 
Note: The "algorithm" and "EMS" estimated variance components are identical if there are no negative estimates. 
ANOVA table for number of actions. Sample sizes: Individuals =259. Situations = 12. All universes assumed to be infinite. 
Ftest degrees of freedom  
Effect  Degrees of Freedom  Sums of squares for mean scores  Sums of squares for score effects  Mean squares  F statistic*  Numerator  Denominator  
Individuals  258  14717.16667  1571.20013  6.08992  6.61504  258  2838  
Situation  11  13450.084947  304.11840  27.64713  30.03104  11  2838  
Individuals x situation  2838  17634.00000  2612.71493  0.92062  
Mean  13145.96654  
Total  3107  4488.03346  
Notes: *For generalizability analyses, F statistics should be ignored. 
(from G study)  (from D study)  
Model variance components  Variance components for mean scores  
Effect  Degrees of freedom  Using algorithm/ EMS squares  Percentage of variance accounted for  Standard error  Estimates  Standard error 
Individuals  258  0.4307754  83.4  0.0445567  0.43078  0.04456 
Situation  11  0.1031912  1.7  0.0418692  0.00860  0.00349 
Individuals x Situation  2838  0.9206184  14.9  0.0244307  0.07672  0.00204 
Note: The "algorithm" and "EMS" estimated variance components are identical if there are no negative estimates. 
[ p. 21 ]
Descriptive statistics for the three variables of interest are presented below in Table 7. Note that these descriptive statistics refer to the means of each individual's 12 responses. Of particular interest are those items indicating the range of responses.Mean words  Mean speech acts  Mean actions  
Mean  13.72  2.32  2.28 
Standard Deviation  5.03  0.68  0.61 
Standard Error  0.31  0.04  0.04 
Median  13.33  2.33  2.33 
Mode  9.33  2.00  2.00 
Kurtosis  0.26  0.30  0.36 
Skewness  0.54  0.51  0.34 
Range  26.29  3.55  3.36 
Minimum  3.63  1.00  1.00 
Maximum  29.92  4.55  4.36 
99% CI for mean  0.81  0.11  0.10 
[ p. 22 ]
[ p. 23 ]
[ p. 24 ]
Discussion
[ p. 25 ]
Conclusion and directions for further research
References
[ p. 26 ]
Bonikowska, M. P. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics, 9 (2), 169181.[ p. 27 ]
Keselman, H. J., Cribbie, R., & Holland, B. (2002). Controlling the rate of Type I error over a large set of statistical tests. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 55, 2739.[ p. 28 ]
Shimura, M., & Molloy, H. P. L. (2003a, November). Using traditional measures and bootstrap replication to calculate confidence intervals. Paper presented at the JALT National Meeting, Shizuoka, Japan.
( Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3 )