본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

e1

Choose quantitative or qualitative methods that fit a research question and dataset. Compare alternatives, check assumptions, generate analysis code, interpret results, and examine sensitivity, meaning how conclusions change under different analytical choices.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

원문원문 설명 보기

E1-Quantitative Analysis Guide with Code Generation & Sensitivity Analysis VS-Enhanced with Full 5-Phase process: Avoids obvious analyses, explores innovative methodologies Expanded to include qualitative analysis (thematic, grounded theory, content, narrative) Absorbed E4 (Analysis Code Generator) and E5 (Sensitivity Analysis - Primary Study) capabilities Use when: selecting statistical/qualitative methods, interpreting results, checking assumptions, generating code, sensitivity analysis Triggers: statistical analysis, ANOVA, regression, t-test, power analysis, assumption checking, effect size, thematic analysis, grounded theory, content analysis, narrative analysis, NVivo, ATLAS.ti, coding, qualitative data, R code, Python code, SPSS syntax, sensitivity analysis, robustness check

설치 방법 보기

이럴 때 유용합니다

  • Choosing methods for a research question
  • Generating analysis code in R or Python
  • Planning theme identification in interview data
  • Checking assumptions and sensitivity of results

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md37.3 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

⛔ Prerequisites (v8.2 — MCP Enforcement)

diverga_check_prerequisites("e1") → must return approved: true If not approved → AskUserQuestion for each missing checkpoint (see .claude/references/checkpoint-templates.md)

Checkpoints During Execution

  • 🟠 CP_ANALYSIS_PLAN → diverga_mark_checkpoint("CP_ANALYSIS_PLAN", decision, rationale)

Fallback (MCP unavailable)

Read .research/decision-log.yaml directly to verify prerequisites. Conversation history is last resort.


E1-Quantitative Analysis Guide

Agent ID: E1 (formerly 10) Category: E - Publication & Communication (Analysis Methods) VS Level: Full (5-Phase) Tier: Flagship Icon: 📈📊

Overview

Comprehensive guide for both quantitative and qualitative analysis methods appropriate for research design and data characteristics. Applies VS-Research methodology to avoid monotonous analyses like "recommend t-test" or "just do thematic analysis," presenting methodological diversity optimized for research questions across paradigms.

VS-Research 5-Phase Process

Phase 0: Context Collection (MANDATORY)

Must collect before VS application:

Required Context:
  - research_question: "Relationship/difference to analyze"
  - independent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
  - dependent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
  - design: "Independent/Repeated/Mixed"

Optional Context:
  - control_variables: "Covariate list"
  - sample_size: "Current or expected N"
  - target_journal: "Target journal level"

Phase 1: Modal Analysis Method Identification

Purpose: Explicitly identify the most predictable "obvious" analysis methods

## Phase 1: Modal Analysis Method Identification

⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are the most commonly used analyses for this design:

| Modal Method | T-Score | Usage Rate | Limitation |
|--------------|---------|------------|------------|
| [Method1] | 0.92 | 60%+ | [Limitation] |
| [Method2] | 0.88 | 25%+ | [Limitation] |

➡️ Confirming if this is optimal and exploring more suitable alternatives.

Phase 2: Long-Tail Analysis Method Sampling

Purpose: Present alternatives at 3 levels based on T-Score

## Phase 2: Long-Tail Analysis Method Sampling

**Direction A** (T ≈ 0.7): Standard but enhanced analysis
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Familiar to reviewers, slight improvements
- Suitable for: Conservative journals

**Direction B** (T ≈ 0.45): Modern alternatives
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Methodological contribution, more accurate inference
- Suitable for: Methodology-oriented journals

**Direction C** (T < 0.3): Innovative approaches
- [Method]: [Description]
- Advantages: Latest methodology, high differentiation
- Suitable for: Top-tier journals

Phase 3: Low-Typicality Selection

Purpose: Select method most appropriate for research question and data

Selection Criteria:

  1. Statistical Fit: Assumption satisfaction, data characteristics
  2. Research Question Alignment: Optimal for hypothesis testing
  3. Methodological Contribution: Differentiation potential
  4. Feasibility: Software, expertise

Phase 4: Execution

Purpose: Provide specific guidance for selected analysis method

## Phase 4: Analysis Execution Guide

### Primary Analysis Method

[Specific guidance]

### Assumption Checks

[Procedures and code]

### Effect Size

[Calculation and interpretation]

Phase 5: Suitability Verification

Purpose: Confirm final selection is optimal for research

## Phase 5: Suitability Verification

✅ Modal Avoidance Check:
- [ ] "Was basic t-test/ANOVA sufficient?" → Review complete
- [ ] "Are there more suitable modern alternatives?" → Review complete
- [ ] "Is methodological contribution possible?" → Confirmed

✅ Quality Check:
- [ ] Statistical assumptions satisfied? → YES
- [ ] Accurately answers research question? → YES
- [ ] Defensible in peer review? → YES

Typicality Score Reference Table

Quantitative Analysis Method T-Score

T > 0.8 (Modal - Explore Alternatives):
├── Independent t-test
├── One-way ANOVA
├── OLS Regression (simple)
├── Pearson correlation
└── Chi-square test

T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Situational):
├── Factorial ANOVA
├── ANCOVA
├── Multiple regression
├── Hierarchical regression
├── Repeated measures ANOVA
├── Mixed ANOVA
└── Traditional Meta-analysis

T 0.3-0.5 (Modern - Recommended):
├── Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM/MLM)
├── Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
├── Latent Growth Modeling
├── Bayesian regression
├── Mixed-effects models
├── Meta-Analytic SEM (MASEM)
├── Propensity Score Matching
└── Robust methods (bootstrapping)

T < 0.3 (Innovative - For Top-tier):
├── Bayesian methods (full)
├── Causal inference (IV, RDD, DiD)
├── Machine Learning + inference (SHAP, causal forests)
├── Network analysis
├── Computational modeling
└── Novel hybrid methods (Double ML, Targeted learning)

Qualitative Analysis Method T-Score

T > 0.8 (Modal - Explore Alternatives):
├── Generic thematic analysis
├── Basic content analysis
├── Descriptive coding
└── Simple categorization

T 0.5-0.8 (Established - Situational):
├── Braun & Clarke thematic analysis (6-phase)
├── Grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin)
├── Directed content analysis
├── Narrative analysis (thematic)
├── Framework analysis
└── Template analysis

T 0.3-0.5 (Modern - Recommended):
├── Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
├── Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz)
├── Structural narrative analysis
├── Discourse analysis
├── Reflexive thematic analysis
└── Abductive analysis

T < 0.3 (Innovative - For Top-tier):
├── Critical discourse analysis (CDA)
├── Foucauldian discourse analysis
├── Situational analysis (Clarke)
├── Dialogic/performance narrative analysis
├── Computational text analysis + qualitative interpretation
├── Visual discourse analysis
└── Multimodal analysis

Input Requirements

For Quantitative Analysis

Required:
  - research_question: "Relationship/difference to analyze"
  - independent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"
  - dependent_variable: "Type (continuous/categorical), number of levels"

Optional:
  - control_variables: "Covariate list"
  - design: "Independent/Repeated/Mixed"
  - sample_size: "Current or expected N"
  - target_journal: "Target journal level"

For Qualitative Analysis

Required:
  - research_question: "Phenomenon/experience to explore"
  - data_type: "Interviews/Focus groups/Documents/Visual/Observational"
  - sample_size: "N participants or texts"

Optional:
  - paradigm: "Interpretive/Critical/Constructivist/Positivist"
  - prior_theory: "Deductive approach with existing framework?"
  - software_preference: "NVivo/ATLAS.ti/MAXQDA/Manual"
  - team_coding: "Multiple coders? Y/N"

Output Format (VS-Enhanced)

## Statistical Analysis Guide (VS-Enhanced)

---

### Phase 1: Modal Analysis Method Identification

⚠️ **Modal Warning**: The following are most commonly recommended analyses for this design:

| Modal Method | T-Score | Limitation in This Study |
|--------------|---------|--------------------------|
| [Method1] | 0.92 | [Specific limitation] |
| [Method2] | 0.88 | [Specific limitation] |

➡️ Confirming if this is optimal and exploring more suitable alternatives.

---

### Phase 2: Long-Tail Analysis Method Sampling

**Direction A** (T = 0.72): [Standard Enhanced Method]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]

**Direction B** (T = 0.48): [Modern Alternative]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]

**Direction C** (T = 0.28): [Innovative Approach]
- Method: [Specific method]
- Advantages: [Strengths]
- Suitable for: [Target]

---

### Phase 3: Low-Typicality Selection

**Selection**: Direction [B] - [Method name] (T = [X.X])

**Selection Rationale**:
1. [Rationale 1 - Statistical fit]
2. [Rationale 2 - Research question alignment]
3. [Rationale 3 - Feasibility]

---

### Phase 4: Analysis Execution Guide

#### 1. Analysis Overview

| Item | Content |
|------|---------|
| Research Question | [Question] |
| Independent Variable | [Variable name] (Type: [Continuous/Categorical], Levels: [N]) |
| Dependent Variable | [Variable name] (Type: [Continuous/Categorical]) |
| Control Variables | [Variable name] |
| Design | [Independent/Repeated/Mixed] |

#### 2. Recommended Analysis Method

**Primary Analysis**: [Method name]

**Selection Rationale**:
- [Rationale 1]
- [Rationale 2]

**Alternative** (if assumptions violated): [Alternative method]

#### 3. Assumption Check Procedures

##### Normality
- **Test**: Shapiro-Wilk (N < 50) / K-S (N ≥ 50)
- **Visualization**: Q-Q plot, histogram

```r
# R code
shapiro.test(data$DV)
qqnorm(data$DV); qqline(data$DV)
  • Interpretation: p > .05 → Normality satisfied
  • If violated: [Non-parametric alternative] or bootstrapping
Homogeneity of Variance
  • Test: Levene's test
library(car)
leveneTest(DV ~ Group, data = data)
  • Interpretation: p > .05 → Homogeneity satisfied
  • If violated: Welch's correction / robust SE
[Additional assumptions...]

4. Power Analysis

A Priori Analysis
ParameterValue
Expected effect size[d = / η² = / f² = ]
Significance level (α).05
Power (1-β).80
Required sample sizeN = [calculated value]
# G*Power or R pwr package
library(pwr)
pwr.t.test(d = 0.5, sig.level = 0.05, power = 0.80, type = "two.sample")
Sensitivity Analysis
  • Minimum detectable effect size with current N: [d = ]

5. Analysis Code

# R code - Primary analysis
library(tidyverse)
library(effectsize)

# 1. Load data
data <- read_csv("data.csv")

# 2. Descriptive statistics
data %>%
  group_by(Group) %>%
  summarise(
    n = n(),
    mean = mean(DV),
    sd = sd(DV)
  )

# 3. Primary analysis
model <- [analysis function]

# 4. Effect size
[effect size calculation code]
# Python code (alternative)
import pandas as pd
import scipy.stats as stats
import pingouin as pg

# [Same analysis in Python]

6. Effect Size Interpretation

Effect SizeValueInterpretation (Cohen's criteria)Practical Meaning
[Metric][Value][Small/Medium/Large][Interpretation]

Interpretation Criteria (Cohen, 1988):

MetricSmallMediumLarge
d0.20.50.8
η².01.06.14
r.10.30.50
f².02.15.35

7. Multiple Comparisons (if applicable)

Correction Method: [Bonferroni / Tukey / FDR]

  • Number of comparisons: [k]
  • Corrected α: [α/k or FDR adjusted]
# R code - Multiple comparison correction
p.adjust(p_values, method = "BH")  # Benjamini-Hochberg FDR

8. Results Reporting Format (APA 7th)

[Analysis method] results showed [statistic] was statistically significant[/not significant],
[statistic = X.XX, p = .XXX, effect size = X.XX, 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]].

Example (selected analysis): "[Method name] results showed that [variable]'s effect on [variable] was statistically significant, [statistic], [effect size], 95% CI [X.XX, X.XX]."


Phase 5: Suitability Verification

✅ Modal Avoidance Check:

  • Confirmed selection rationale for [selected analysis] over basic analysis
  • Reviewed more suitable modern alternatives
  • Confirmed methodological contribution potential

✅ Quality Assurance:

  • Assumption check procedures included
  • Effect size and confidence interval calculations
  • APA format results reporting prepared

---

## Qualitative Analysis Methods (NEW in v5.0)

### Thematic Analysis

**Approach**: Braun & Clarke 6-Phase Framework

```yaml
thematic_analysis:
  phases:
    phase_1_familiarization:
      activities:
        - "Read and re-read data"
        - "Note initial ideas"
        - "Immerse in content"
      output: "Familiarization notes"

    phase_2_coding:
      activities:
        - "Generate initial codes systematically"
        - "Code interesting features"
        - "Collate data relevant to each code"
      output: "Coded data extracts"
      tools: ["NVivo", "ATLAS.ti", "MAXQDA", "Dedoose"]

    phase_3_searching_themes:
      activities:
        - "Collate codes into potential themes"
        - "Gather data relevant to each theme"
      output: "List of candidate themes"

    phase_4_reviewing_themes:
      activities:
        - "Check themes work with coded extracts"
        - "Generate thematic map"
      output: "Refined themes and thematic map"

    phase_5_defining_naming:
      activities:
        - "Define and refine each theme"
        - "Generate clear definitions"
        - "Name themes"
      output: "Theme definitions and names"

    phase_6_writing:
      activities:
        - "Final analysis"
        - "Select vivid extracts"
        - "Relate to research question and literature"
      output: "Scholarly report"

  quality_criteria:
    - "Theoretical coherence"
    - "Richness of interpretation"
    - "Member checking (optional)"
    - "Audit trail"

  software_comparison:
    nvivo:
      strengths: ["Rich visualization", "Matrix coding", "Framework matrices"]
      best_for: "Large qualitative datasets"

    atlas_ti:
      strengths: ["Hermeneutic unit", "Network views", "Query tools"]
      best_for: "Grounded theory and complex theory building"

    maxqda:
      strengths: ["Mixed methods", "Visual tools", "TeamCloud"]
      best_for: "Mixed methods research"

    dedoose:
      strengths: ["Web-based", "Collaboration", "Mixed methods"]
      best_for: "Team-based coding"

Grounded Theory Analysis

grounded_theory_analysis:
  approaches:
    strauss_corbin:
      paradigm_model:
        - "Causal conditions"
        - "Phenomenon"
        - "Context"
        - "Intervening conditions"
        - "Action/interaction strategies"
        - "Consequences"
      coding_process: "Systematic and structured"

    charmaz_constructivist:
      focus: "Social construction of meaning"
      coding_process: "Flexible and emergent"
      emphasis: "Researcher reflexivity"

    glaser_classic:
      focus: "Theory emergence from data"
      coding_process: "Minimally structured"
      emphasis: "Theoretical sensitivity"

  coding_types:
    open_coding:
      purpose: "Breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing data"
      output: "Concepts and categories"
      techniques:
        - "Line-by-line coding"
        - "Incident-by-incident coding"
        - "Constant comparison"

    axial_coding:
      purpose: "Relating categories to subcategories"
      output: "Paradigm model relationships"
      techniques:
        - "Linking categories"
        - "Identifying conditions-actions-consequences"

    selective_coding:
      purpose: "Integrating and refining theory"
      output: "Core category and theoretical framework"
      techniques:
        - "Storyline development"
        - "Theory integration"

  memo_writing:
    purpose: "Develop theoretical sensitivity and capture analytic thinking"
    types:
      - "Code notes (what code means)"
      - "Theoretical notes (conceptual thinking)"
      - "Operational notes (procedures)"
    frequency: "Continuous throughout coding"

  theoretical_saturation:
    definition: "No new themes/categories emerging from data"
    indicators:
      - "New data fits existing categories"
      - "Categories well-developed"
      - "Relationships between categories clear"

Content Analysis

content_analysis:
  approaches:
    deductive:
      process: "Theory-driven coding scheme applied to data"
      use_when: "Testing existing theory or frameworks"
      steps:
        - "Develop coding scheme from theory"
        - "Define categories and rules"
        - "Train coders"
        - "Code data"
        - "Calculate reliability"

    inductive:
      process: "Coding scheme emerges from data"
      use_when: "Exploratory research"
      steps:
        - "Immerse in data"
        - "Identify patterns"
        - "Create categories"
        - "Define coding rules"
        - "Code data"

    directed:
      process: "Hybrid - start with theory, allow emergence"
      use_when: "Extending existing theory"

  units_of_analysis:
    analysis_unit:
      definition: "What to count (theme, word, paragraph, entire text)"
      examples: ["Sentence", "Paragraph", "Entire article", "Tweet"]

    coding_unit:
      definition: "Smallest element counted"
      examples: ["Word", "Phrase", "Sentence"]

    context_unit:
      definition: "Boundary for interpreting coding unit"
      examples: ["Paragraph surrounding sentence", "Entire article"]

  reliability_measures:
    krippendorff_alpha:
      use: "Multiple coders, any level of measurement"
      interpretation:
        - "α ≥ 0.80: Acceptable"
        - "α ≥ 0.67: Tentatively acceptable (exploratory)"
      formula: "1 - (Observed disagreement / Expected disagreement)"

    cohen_kappa:
      use: "Two coders, nominal/ordinal data"
      interpretation:
        - "κ < 0.40: Poor"
        - "κ 0.40-0.59: Fair"
        - "κ 0.60-0.74: Good"
        - "κ ≥ 0.75: Excellent"

    percent_agreement:
      use: "Simple reliability estimate (not recommended alone)"
      interpretation: "≥ 80% often used, but doesn't account for chance"

Narrative Analysis

narrative_analysis:
  approaches:
    structural:
      focus: "Organization and structure of narratives"
      frameworks:
        - "Labov's narrative structure (abstract, orientation, complication, evaluation, resolution, coda)"
        - "Burke's dramatistic pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, purpose)"
      analysis_focus: "How story is told"

    thematic:
      focus: "What is told (content)"
      approach: "Identify themes across narratives"
      similarity_to: "Thematic analysis of narrative data"

    dialogic_performance:
      focus: "Interactive context of storytelling"
      emphasis:
        - "Who tells to whom"
        - "When and why"
        - "Co-construction of narrative"

    visual_narrative:
      focus: "Visual storytelling (photos, videos, drawings)"
      methods:
        - "Visual discourse analysis"
        - "Multimodal analysis"

  analytical_elements:
    plot:
      definition: "Sequence of events and how connected"
      questions:
        - "What is the main storyline?"
        - "How are events causally linked?"

    temporality:
      definition: "How time is constructed in narrative"
      aspects:
        - "Chronology vs. flashbacks"
        - "Duration and frequency"
        - "Temporal markers"

    character:
      definition: "Roles and development of actors"
      analysis:
        - "Protagonist/antagonist"
        - "Character agency"
        - "Transformation over time"

    setting:
      definition: "Physical, temporal, social context"
      importance: "How setting shapes narrative"

Advanced Quantitative Methods (NEW in v5.0)

Bayesian Analysis

bayesian_analysis:
  core_concept: "Update beliefs with data using Bayes' theorem"

  packages:
    r_packages:
      brms:
        description: "Bayesian Regression Models using Stan"
        strengths: ["Flexible syntax", "Multilevel models", "Great documentation"]
        example: |
          library(brms)
          fit <- brm(y ~ x + (1|group), data = data,
                     family = gaussian(),
                     prior = c(prior(normal(0, 10), class = b)))

      rstanarm:
        description: "Applied Regression Modeling via Stan"
        strengths: ["Easy syntax", "Pre-compiled models", "Fast"]

    python_packages:
      pymc:
        description: "Probabilistic programming in Python"
        strengths: ["Flexible", "Large community", "Integration with ArviZ"]
        example: |
          import pymc as pm
          with pm.Model() as model:
              beta = pm.Normal('beta', mu=0, sigma=10)
              sigma = pm.HalfNormal('sigma', sigma=1)
              y_obs = pm.Normal('y_obs', mu=beta*x, sigma=sigma, observed=y)
              trace = pm.sample(2000)

  use_cases:
    prior_incorporation:
      description: "Incorporate existing knowledge as priors"
      example: "Meta-analysis results as priors for new study"

    small_samples:
      description: "Better uncertainty quantification with limited data"
      advantage: "Regularization prevents overfitting"

    complex_hierarchical:
      description: "Natural fit for multilevel/hierarchical models"
      advantage: "Partial pooling and shrinkage"

  advantages:
    - "Quantifies uncertainty via posterior distributions"
    - "Incorporates prior knowledge formally"
    - "No p-values or significance testing"
    - "Intuitive probability statements (e.g., '95% probability effect > 0')"

  reporting:
    elements:
      - "Prior specification and justification"
      - "Posterior distributions (median, 95% credible intervals)"
      - "Convergence diagnostics (Rhat, ESS)"
      - "Posterior predictive checks"

Machine Learning for Inference

machine_learning:
  paradigm_shift: "Prediction-focused, but can support causal inference"

  techniques:
    random_forest:
      use_for: "Variable importance, non-linear relationships"
      interpretation: ["Feature importance via Gini/permutation", "Partial dependence plots"]
      packages: ["randomForest (R)", "scikit-learn (Python)"]

    support_vector_machines:
      use_for: "Classification with complex boundaries"
      kernels: ["Linear", "Polynomial", "RBF"]
      packages: ["e1071 (R)", "scikit-learn (Python)"]

    neural_networks:
      use_for: "Complex non-linear patterns, image/text data"
      architectures: ["Feedforward", "CNN", "RNN/LSTM"]
      packages: ["keras/tensorflow", "pytorch"]

    gradient_boosting:
      use_for: "High-performance prediction, structured data"
      implementations: ["XGBoost", "LightGBM", "CatBoost"]
      advantage: "State-of-the-art performance on tabular data"

  validation_strategies:
    cross_validation:
      k_fold:
        description: "Split data into k folds, rotate train/test"
        typical_k: "5 or 10"

      stratified:
        description: "Preserve class proportions in each fold"
        use_when: "Imbalanced outcome variable"

      leave_one_out:
        description: "Use n-1 observations to predict 1"
        use_when: "Very small sample sizes"

    holdout:
      description: "Single train/test split (e.g., 80/20)"
      use_when: "Large datasets"

    bootstrap:
      description: "Resample with replacement"
      use_for: "Uncertainty estimation, small samples"

  interpretation_tools:
    shap_values:
      description: "Shapley Additive Explanations"
      advantage: "Game-theoretic, consistent feature attribution"
      packages: ["shap (Python)", "fastshap (R)"]
      use: "Explain individual predictions and global patterns"

    feature_importance:
      methods:
        - "Permutation importance (model-agnostic)"
        - "Gini importance (tree-based)"
        - "Coefficient magnitude (linear models)"

    partial_dependence:
      description: "Marginal effect of feature on prediction"
      packages: ["pdp (R/Python)", "iml (R)"]

    lime:
      description: "Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations"
      use: "Explain individual predictions via local linear approximation"

  causal_ml:
    double_machine_learning:
      description: "Use ML for nuisance parameters, preserve inference"
      packages: ["DoubleML (Python/R)"]

    causal_forests:
      description: "Estimate heterogeneous treatment effects"
      packages: ["grf (R)", "EconML (Python)"]

    targeted_learning:
      description: "Efficient estimation of causal parameters"
      packages: ["tmle (R)", "tmle3 (R)"]

Analysis Method Selection Flowchart (VS Enhanced - Expanded)

Research Paradigm?
     │
     ├── Quantitative
     │      │
     │      └── Dependent Variable Type?
     │              │
     │              ├── Continuous
     │              │      │
     │              │      └── Independent Variable Type?
     │              │              │
     │              │              ├── Categorical (2 levels)
     │              │              │      ├── T > 0.8: t-test (modal)
     │              │              │      ├── T ≈ 0.6: Welch's t-test / Bayesian t-test
     │              │              │      ├── T ≈ 0.4: Mixed-effects / Bootstrap
     │              │              │      └── T < 0.3: ML classification + SHAP
     │              │              │
     │              │              ├── Categorical (3+ levels)
     │              │              │      ├── T > 0.8: ANOVA (modal)
     │              │              │      ├── T ≈ 0.6: Welch ANOVA / Bayesian ANOVA
     │              │              │      ├── T ≈ 0.4: Mixed-effects / HLM
     │              │              │      └── T < 0.3: Random forests + variable importance
     │              │              │
     │              │              └── Continuous
     │              │                     ├── T > 0.8: OLS Regression (modal)
     │              │                     ├── T ≈ 0.6: Robust / Bayesian regression
     │              │                     ├── T ≈ 0.4: SEM / Causal inference (PSM, IV)
     │              │                     └── T < 0.3: Causal forests / Double ML
     │              │
     │              └── Categorical
     │                     │
     │                     └── T > 0.8: Chi-square/Logistic (modal)
     │                         T ≈ 0.5: Multinomial/Ordinal logistic
     │                         T < 0.3: Bayesian logistic / Neural networks
     │
     └── Qualitative
            │
            ├── Interpretive Goal?
            │      │
            │      ├── Describe experiences/meanings
            │      │      ├── T > 0.8: Basic thematic analysis (modal)
            │      │      ├── T ≈ 0.5: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)
            │      │      └── T < 0.3: Hermeneutic phenomenology
            │      │
            │      ├── Build theory
            │      │      ├── T > 0.8: Generic grounded theory (modal)
            │      │      ├── T ≈ 0.5: Charmaz constructivist GT
            │      │      └── T < 0.3: Situational analysis / Critical GT
            │      │
            │      ├── Analyze narratives/stories
            │      │      ├── T > 0.8: Thematic narrative analysis (modal)
            │      │      ├── T ≈ 0.5: Structural narrative analysis
            │      │      └── T < 0.3: Dialogic/performance analysis
            │      │
            │      └── Count/quantify content
            │             ├── T > 0.8: Descriptive content analysis (modal)
            │             ├── T ≈ 0.5: Directed content analysis
            │             └── T < 0.3: Computational text analysis + ML

Qualitative Analysis Output Template

## Qualitative Analysis Guide

### Research Context

| Element | Details |
|---------|---------|
| Research Question | {Question} |
| Data Type | {Interviews / Focus groups / Documents / Visual} |
| Sample Size | {N participants / texts} |
| Paradigm | {Interpretive / Critical / Constructivist} |

---

### Recommended Analysis Method

**Primary Method**: {Thematic Analysis / Grounded Theory / Content Analysis / Narrative Analysis}

**Selection Rationale**:
- {Fit with research question}
- {Paradigmatic alignment}
- {Data characteristics}

**Software Recommendation**: {NVivo / ATLAS.ti / MAXQDA / Dedoose / Manual}
- **Rationale**: {Why this software}

---

### Analysis Process

#### Phase 1: {Phase name}

**Activities**:
1. {Activity 1}
2. {Activity 2}

**Output**: {Expected output}

**Quality Check**:
- [ ] {Quality criterion 1}
- [ ] {Quality criterion 2}

#### Phase 2: {Phase name}
[Repeat for all phases]

---

### Coding Framework

#### Initial Coding Scheme (if deductive)

| Code | Definition | Inclusion Criteria | Example |
|------|------------|-------------------|---------|
| {Code 1} | {Definition} | {When to apply} | {Quote example} |
| {Code 2} | {Definition} | {When to apply} | {Quote example} |

#### Coding Process

**Approach**: {Inductive / Deductive / Abductive}

**Coder Training** (if multiple coders):
- Training materials: {Description}
- Practice rounds: {N rounds}
- Disagreement resolution: {Process}

**Inter-coder Reliability Target**:
- Measure: {Krippendorff's α / Cohen's κ / % agreement}
- Target: {≥ 0.80 / ≥ 0.70}

---

### Trustworthiness Criteria

| Criterion | Strategy | Implementation |
|-----------|----------|----------------|
| Credibility | {Member checking / Prolonged engagement} | {Specific plan} |
| Transferability | {Thick description} | {Specific plan} |
| Dependability | {Audit trail / Reflexive journal} | {Specific plan} |
| Confirmability | {Reflexivity / External audit} | {Specific plan} |

---

### Results Reporting

#### Theme Structure

**Theme 1**: "{Theme name}"
- **Definition**: {What this theme represents}
- **Sub-themes**: {If applicable}
- **Illustrative quotes**:
  - "{Quote 1}" (Participant X)
  - "{Quote 2}" (Participant Y)

#### Thematic Map

[Visual representation of theme relationships]


#### Narrative Account

[How themes relate to research question, existing theory, and broader context]

---

### Quality Assurance Checklist

- [ ] Analysis process clearly documented
- [ ] Coding scheme defined and applied consistently
- [ ] Inter-coder reliability assessed (if multiple coders)
- [ ] Audit trail maintained
- [ ] Reflexivity addressed
- [ ] Sufficient data extracts provided
- [ ] Interpretation goes beyond description

Absorbed Capabilities (v11.0)

From E4 — Analysis Code Generator

  • R Code Generation: metafor (rma, forest, funnel), lavaan (sem, cfa, growth), lme4 (lmer, glmer), tidyverse pipelines, psych package
  • Python Code Generation: statsmodels (OLS, logit, MixedLM, GLM), pymeta/PythonMeta, scikit-learn, pingouin
  • SPSS Syntax Generation: COMPUTE, RECODE, GLM, REGRESSION, MIXED, EXAMINE, OUTPUT EXPORT
  • Stata Do-File Generation: regress, mixed, melogit, meta set/summarize/forestplot, sem, estout/esttab
  • Mplus Input Generation: MODEL specification for CFA/SEM, ANALYSIS options (MLR, WLSMV, Bayesian), multi-group and longitudinal syntax

From E5 — Sensitivity Analysis (Primary Study)

  • Specification Curve Analysis: Define all defensible analytical choices, run all plausible specifications, visualize sorted results
  • Multiverse Analysis: Map full decision tree, identify branch points, compute all paths, report proportion of significant results
  • Robustness Checks: Alternative operationalizations, with/without covariates, different estimation methods, sample variations, alternative missing data treatments
  • Sensitivity to Outliers: Cook's distance, leverage, DFBETAS, robust regression (M-estimation, MM-estimation), case removal sensitivity

Related Agents

  • C1-QuantitativeDesignConsultant: Verify design before analysis
  • C2-QualitativeDesignConsultant: Qualitative design support
  • E2-QualitativeCodingSpecialist: Specialized qualitative coding

Self-Critique Requirements (Full VS Mandatory)

This self-evaluation section must be included in all outputs.

---

## 🔍 Self-Critique

### Strengths
Advantages of this statistical analysis recommendation:
- [ ] {Fit with research question}
- [ ] {Statistical assumption satisfaction}
- [ ] {Power adequacy}

### Weaknesses
Potential limitations:
- [ ] {Causation vs correlation confusion risk}: {Mitigation approach}
- [ ] {Context-dependency of effect size interpretation}: {Mitigation approach}
- [ ] {Multiple comparison issues}: {Mitigation approach}

### Alternative Perspectives
Pros and cons of alternative methodologies:
- **Alternative 1**: "{Alternative method}"
  - **Advantages**: "{Advantages}"
  - **Reason not selected**: "{Reason}"
- **Alternative 2**: "{Alternative method}"
  - **Advantages**: "{Advantages}"
  - **Reason not selected**: "{Reason}"

### Improvement Suggestions
Suggestions for analysis improvement:
1. {Additional analysis recommendations}
2. {Robustness verification methods}

### Confidence Assessment
| Area | Confidence | Rationale |
|------|------------|-----------|
| Method selection appropriateness | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Assumption satisfaction | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |
| Results interpretation accuracy | {High/Medium/Low} | {Rationale} |

**Overall Confidence**: {Score}/100

---

v3.0 Creativity Mechanism Integration

Available Creativity Mechanisms

This agent has FULL upgrade level, utilizing all 5 creativity mechanisms:

MechanismApplication TimingUsage Example
Forced AnalogyPhase 2Apply analysis methodology patterns from other fields by analogy (e.g., Physics → Social Science)
Iterative LoopPhase 2-34-round analysis method refinement cycle
Semantic DistancePhase 2Discover semantically distant analysis technique combinations
Temporal ReframingPhase 1Review methodology development from past/future perspectives
Community SimulationPhase 4-5Methodology feedback from 7 virtual statisticians

Checkpoint Integration

Applied Checkpoints:
  - CP-INIT-002: Select creativity level (conservative/innovative analysis)
  - CP-VS-001: Select analysis method direction (multiple)
  - CP-VS-002: Innovative methodology warning (T < 0.3)
  - CP-VS-003: Analysis method satisfaction confirmation
  - CP-FA-001: Select analogy source field
  - CP-IL-001~004: Analysis refinement round progress
  - CP-SD-001: Methodology combination distance threshold
  - CP-CS-001: Select statistician personas

References

System References

  • VS Engine v3.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/vs-engine.md
  • Dynamic T-Score: ../../research-coordinator/core/t-score-dynamic.md
  • Creativity Mechanisms: ../../research-coordinator/references/creativity-mechanisms.md
  • Project State v4.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/project-state.md
  • Pipeline Templates v4.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/pipeline-templates.md
  • Integration Hub v4.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/integration-hub.md
  • Guided Wizard v4.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/guided-wizard.md
  • Auto-Documentation v4.0: ../../research-coordinator/core/auto-documentation.md

Quantitative Methods References

  • Field, A. (2018). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  • McElreath, R. (2020). Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
  • Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.
  • James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2021). An Introduction to Statistical Learning (2nd ed.). Springer.

Qualitative Methods References

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  • Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.
  • Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. SAGE.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (4th ed.). SAGE.
  • Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. SAGE.
  • Saldaña, J. (2021). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (4th ed.). SAGE.

Software References

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

a1

무료

Turn a broad research idea into clear, testable questions. Compare familiar and less conventional approaches, structure the selected question around its population and methods, and assess variables, feasibility, and potential theoretical contributions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Turn a research topic into testable questions
  • Narrow an overly broad research question
  • Compare alternative research angles
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

a2

무료

Helps build a research framework by comparing theories, mapping relationships between variables, and deriving testable hypotheses. Explores less conventional options, examines weaknesses and competing explanations, and produces diagrams with anticipated reviewer objections.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Comparing theories for a research question
  • Deriving hypotheses from relationships between variables
  • Examining weaknesses and anticipated reviewer objections
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

a5

무료

Clarify the philosophical assumptions behind a research project and check whether they fit the proposed methods. Get a reasoned research stance, draft proposal wording, and guidance for explaining how the researcher's background and values shape the study.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Clarifying philosophical foundations for a research proposal
  • Explaining why the chosen research methods fit the study
  • Drafting a statement about the researcher's position
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Plan and draft academic papers through specialized agent roles covering literature, arguments, citations, and review. Get chapter guidance, revision roadmaps, Traditional Chinese and English abstracts, and documents formatted as LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, or Markdown.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Planning a paper chapter by chapter
  • Drafting a paper from research materials
  • Turning reviewer comments into a revision roadmap
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Turn a detailed outline into a philosophy or interdisciplinary manuscript. Draft chapters with repeated quality reviews, check terminology and arguments across sections, and prepare the manuscript, evaluation reports, abstract, and metadata for submission.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Draft a full paper from a detailed outline
  • Review argument and citation quality chapter by chapter
  • Check terminology and argument flow across chapters
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

Simulate academic peer review through five reviewer roles tailored to the paper's field. Receive separate critiques, an editorial decision, and a prioritized revision roadmap, or check whether a revised manuscript addresses earlier comments.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

  • Review a manuscript before journal submission
  • Examine research methods and statistical validity
  • Challenge core arguments and alternative explanations
brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills4.7천2026년 10월 20일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고