minor typo fix

Author: jeremymanning

paper/changes.pdf

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \documentclass[10pt]{article}
 %DIF LATEXDIFF DIFFERENCE FILE
 %DIF DEL old.tex    Mon Feb 19 07:49:49 2024
-%DIF ADD main.tex   Wed Feb 21 19:15:05 2024
+%DIF ADD main.tex   Wed Feb 21 19:20:24 2024
 %DIF 2a2
 \usepackage{amsmath} %DIF > 
 %DIF -------
@@ -1780,7 +1780,7 @@ \subsubsection*{Estimating dynamic knowledge traces}\label{subsec:traces}
     \DIFadd{\mathtt{accuracy \sim (1\ \vert\ participant) + (1\ \vert\ question)}
 }\]
 \DIFadd{where ``}\texttt{\DIFadd{accuracy}}\DIFadd{'', ``}\texttt{\DIFadd{participant}}\DIFadd{'', and ``}\texttt{\DIFadd{question}}\DIFadd{'' are as defined above. 
-As with our full models, the null models we fit for the “All questions” version of the analysis for each quiz contained an additional term, $\mathtt{(1\ \vert\ lecture)}$, where ``}\texttt{\DIFadd{lecture}}\DIFadd{'' are as defined above. 
+As with our full models, the null models we fit for the “All questions” version of the analysis for each quiz contained an additional term, $\mathtt{(1\ \vert\ lecture)}$, where ``}\texttt{\DIFadd{lecture}}\DIFadd{'' is as defined above. 
 We then compared each full model to its reduced (null) equivalent using a likelihood-ratio test (LRT). 
 Because the typical asymptotic $\chi^2_d$ approximation of the null distribution for the LRT statistic ($\lambda_{LR}$) is anti-conservative for models that differ in their random slope terms~\mbox{%DIFAUXCMD
 \citep{GoldSimo00,ScheEtal08b,SnijBosk11}}\hskip0pt%DIFAUXCMD

paper/changes.tex

@@ -1536,7 +1536,7 @@ \subsubsection*{Generalized linear mixed models}\label{subsec:glmm}
     \mathtt{accuracy \sim (1\ \vert\ participant) + (1\ \vert\ question)}
 \]
 where ``\texttt{accuracy}'', ``\texttt{participant}'', and ``\texttt{question}'' are as defined above. 
-As with our full models, the null models we fit for the “All questions” version of the analysis for each quiz contained an additional term, $\mathtt{(1\ \vert\ lecture)}$, where ``\texttt{lecture}'' are as defined above. 
+As with our full models, the null models we fit for the “All questions” version of the analysis for each quiz contained an additional term, $\mathtt{(1\ \vert\ lecture)}$, where ``\texttt{lecture}'' is as defined above. 
 We then compared each full model to its reduced (null) equivalent using a likelihood-ratio test (LRT). 
 Because the typical asymptotic $\chi^2_d$ approximation of the null distribution for the LRT statistic ($\lambda_{LR}$) is anti-conservative for models that differ in their random slope terms~\citep{GoldSimo00,ScheEtal08b,SnijBosk11}, we computed $p$-values for these tests using a parametric bootstrapping procedure~\citep{HaleHojs14}. 
 For each of 1,000 bootstraps, we used the fitted null model to simulate a sample of observations of equal size to our original sample.