Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Band Theory

Band Theory

When two or more atoms come together to form a molecule, their atomic orbitals combine and molecular orbitals of distinct energies result. In a solid, there are a large number of atoms, and therefore a large number of atomic orbitals that may be combined into molecular orbitals. These groups of molecular orbitals are so closely placed together to form continuous regions of energies, known as the bands.
The energy difference between these bands is known as the band gap.
Conductor, Semiconductor,...

Scientific Laws and Theories

Scientific Laws and Theories

Scientific Laws

Molecular Orbital Theory II

Molecular Orbital Theory II

Molecular Orbital Energy Diagrams

Valence Bond Theory

Valence Bond Theory

Overview of Valence Bond Theory

Models, Theories, and Laws

Models, Theories, and Laws

Scientists frequently use models to help them comprehend a specific collection of phenomena. In physics, a model is a condensed version of a physical system that is too complex to study thoroughly. One such example is the light wave model; unlike water waves, light waves are typically invisible to us. Nonetheless, it is helpful to think of light as being composed of waves, since investigations show that light behaves like water waves. Since it is impossible to visually see what is genuinely...

Attribution Theory

Attribution Theory

Behavior is a product of both the situation (e.g., cultural influences, social roles, and the presence of bystanders) and of the person (e.g., personality characteristics). Subfields of psychology tend to focus on one influence or behavior over others. Situationism is the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings. In contrast, dispositionism holds that our behavior is determined by internal factors (Heider, 1958).

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Neutrophil extracellular traps-induced pyroptosis of liver sinusoidal endothelial cells exacerbates intrahepatic coagulation in cholestatic mice.

Biochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease·2025

Same author

Experimental Study of Gas-Liquid Compound Droplet Impact on Superhydrophobic Surface.

Langmuir : the ACS journal of surfaces and colloids·2025

Same author

Correction: Relationship between changes in the triglyceride glucose-body mass index and frail development trajectory and incidence in middle-aged and elderly individuals: a national cohort study.

Cardiovascular diabetology·2025

Same author

Proteo-Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals the Mechanisms Underlying Escherichia coli Phenotypic Shifts Under Blue Light.

Biotechnology and bioengineering·2025

Same author

Research Progress and Clinical Translation Potential of Coronary Atherosclerosis Diagnostic Markers from a Genomic Perspective.

Genes·2025

Same author

Low-Cost and Stable Aramid Nanofiber Membranes for Osmotic Energy Conversion.

ACS applied materials & interfaces·2025

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Feb 9, 2026

Facet-to-facet Linking of Shape-anisotropic Colloidal Cadmium Chalcogenide Nanostructures

Facet-to-facet Linking of Shape-anisotropic Colloidal Cadmium Chalcogenide Nanostructures

Published on: August 10, 2017

Generalizability Theory With One-Facet Nonadditive Models.

Jinming Zhang¹, Chih-Kai Cary Lin²

¹University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA.

Applied Psychological Measurement

|June 9, 2018

Summary

Generalizability (G) theory typically assumes additive models, ignoring subject-by-facet interactions. This study introduces nonadditive models, showing additive assumptions can underestimate variance components and generalizability coefficients when interactions are present.

Keywords:

Tukey’s test additivity index generalizability theory negative estimated variance component nonadditivity repeated measures within-subject design

More Related Videos

Multi-Faceted Mass Spectrometric Investigation of Neuropeptides in Callinectes sapidus

Multi-Faceted Mass Spectrometric Investigation of Neuropeptides in Callinectes sapidus

Published on: May 31, 2022

Soft Pneumatic Robot Modulates Graph Theory Metrics of Brain Network for Hand Rehabilitation After Stroke

Soft Pneumatic Robot Modulates Graph Theory Metrics of Brain Network for Hand Rehabilitation After Stroke

Published on: October 10, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Feb 9, 2026

Facet-to-facet Linking of Shape-anisotropic Colloidal Cadmium Chalcogenide Nanostructures

Facet-to-facet Linking of Shape-anisotropic Colloidal Cadmium Chalcogenide Nanostructures

Published on: August 10, 2017

Multi-Faceted Mass Spectrometric Investigation of Neuropeptides in Callinectes sapidus

Multi-Faceted Mass Spectrometric Investigation of Neuropeptides in Callinectes sapidus

Published on: May 31, 2022

Soft Pneumatic Robot Modulates Graph Theory Metrics of Brain Network for Hand Rehabilitation After Stroke

Soft Pneumatic Robot Modulates Graph Theory Metrics of Brain Network for Hand Rehabilitation After Stroke

Published on: October 10, 2025

Area of Science:

Psychometrics
Statistical Modeling

Background:

Generalizability (G) theory commonly employs additive models, which assume no subject-by-facet interaction effects.
This assumption can lead to inaccurate variance component (VC) estimations when interactions are present.

Purpose of the Study:

To derive variance component estimators for nonadditive generalizability models.
To investigate the impact of subject-by-facet interactions on VC and generalizability coefficient estimations.
To provide guidance on selecting appropriate additive or nonadditive models in G theory applications.

Main Methods:

Derivation of variance component estimators for nonadditive G theory models.
Demonstration and simulation study to compare additive and nonadditive model performance.
Analysis of real-world data to illustrate practical implications.

Main Results:

Nonadditive models yield different variance component estimators than additive models.
Using additive formulas with existing subject-by-facet interactions leads to underestimation of subject variance components.
Consequently, generalizability coefficients are also underestimated under these conditions.

Conclusions:

The presence of subject-by-facet interactions necessitates the use of nonadditive G theory models for accurate variance component estimation.
Failure to account for interactions can result in underestimated generalizability coefficients.
The developed nonadditive G theory framework offers a more generalized approach to G theory, enabling data-driven model selection.