Type I, Type II, and other types of errors in pattern analysis.

C. J. Krauskopf (1991) is to be commended for calling attention to the fact that pattern analysis is subject not only to Type I errors but also Type II errors, which were not even mentioned by A. B. Silverstein (1982). There are, however, a number of points on which the authors still differ. Most notably, Krauskopf's recommendation not only fails to solve the multiple-comparisons problem, it exacerbates that problem. Other possibilities are considered, including the possibility that the assumption on which pattern analysis is based, clinical meaningfulness, is itself an error. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)