| Abstract: | ![]()
Contends that the critique by L. G. Humphreys (see record 1982-24859-001) of the present author's (see record 1981-06882-001) article is vitiated by the facts that (a) the article he criticizes was an invited position paper and not an original presentation of data, so that detailed statistical testing would have been inappropriate to the purpose of the article; (b) Humphreys commits in his reply some of the "misdeeds" of which he accuses the present author; (c) contrary to Humphrey's assertion, the number of cases in the 3 nonentrenchment experiments (74) is more than adequate for drawing conclusions of the sort made; and (d) Humphreys misinterprets his own z tests. (2 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
