Narrow and shallow.

Replies to comments by N. M. Blampied, J Friedrich, B.D. Haig, G. H. McClelland, and D. Sohn (see records 2000-00398-016, 2000-00398-017, 2000-00398-018, 2000-00398-019, and 2000-00398-020 respectively) on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. In this article, members of the TFSI respond to comments by other authors regarding the aforementioned article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Increasing statistical power without increasing sample size.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (TFSI) (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. In this article, G. H. McClelland suggests that the TFSI may have created an unintended false impression that increasing sample size in the best or perhaps only remedy for improving statistical power. He notes that psychologists must consider design strategies other than augmenting sample size for increasing statistical power to reduce cost and minimize the burden on human or animal Ss. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Single-case research designs: A neglected alternative.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The present article criticizes Wilkinson's article, noting that it lacks any recognition that single-case research design might be an alternative to current practices. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Significance testing and the science.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. D. Sohn's main criticism of this article is its failure to address the controversy over a particular way of drawing statistical inferences, the statistical significance test, which was the impetus for the report. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The road to reform: Of editors and educators.

Comments on the article by L. Wilkinson & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (see record 1999-03403-008) which was meant to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting. The report was concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The present article praises Wilkinson's article for making recommendations that are specific enough to bring about dramatic and badly needed changes in statistical practice. In this article, J. Friedrich discusses how these recommendations might be incorporated into professional practice, noting some of the potential obstacles to their implementation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.

In the light of continuing debate over the applications of significance testing in psychology journals and following the publication of J. Cohen's (1994) article, the Board of Scientific Affairs (BSA) of the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a committee called the Task Force on Statistical Interference (TFSI) whose charge was "to elucidate some of the controversial issues surrounding applications of statistics including significance testing and its alternatives; alternative underlying models and data transformation; and newer methods made possible by powerful computers" (BSA, personal communication, February 28, 1996). After extensive discussion, the BSA recommended that publishing an article in American Psychologist, as a way to initiate discussion in the field about changes in current practices of data analysis and reporting may be appropriate. This report follows that request. Following each guideline are comments, explanations, or elaborations assembled by L. Wilkinson for the task force and under its review. The report is concerned with the use of statistical methods only and is not meant as an assessment of research methods in general. The title and format of the report are adapted from an article by J. C. Bailar and F. Mosteller (1988). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

How to enrich scientific method.

Comments on an article (see record 2007-14606-004) by A. Machado and F. J. Silva, who claimed that psychology's current conception of scientific method comprises two clusters of activities: experimentation and mathematization. They proposed that psychology needs to enrich its accounts of scientific method with a third cluster of activities that they call conceptual analysis. Haig agrees with the authors that psychology needs to improve its understanding of scientific methods, but he believes that giving greater attention to conceptual analysis is not the appropriate way to do this. In this comment, Haig suggests that conceptual analysis as such is not a distinctive feature of scientific method. He maintains instead that the most appropriate way to enrich our understanding of scientific method is to develop better theories of scientific method. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Scientific Symbiosis Represents the Mutual Benefit of Iteratively Adopting the Perspective of Realism and Instrumentalism.

Comment on "Psychology Needs Realism not Instrumentalism" by B. Haig (see record 2004-14303-015), "Ontological and epistemic claims of realism and instrumentalism" by Lau (see record 2004-14303-016)and "The scientific denial of the real and the dialectic of scientism and humanism" by Ramey and Chrysikou (see record 2004-14303-017) which were all comments on the original article "Realism, Instrumentalism, and Scientific Symbiosis: Psychological Theory as a Search for Truth and the Discovery of Solutions" by John T. Cacioppo, Gun R. Semin and Gary G. Berntson (see record 2004-14303-001). Cacioppo, Semin and Bernston address each of the comments on their original article and discuss their views on the subject of scientific symbiosis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The expanding role of quantitative methodologists in advancing psychology.

Research designs in psychology have become increasingly complex; thus, the methods for analysing the data have also become more complex. It is unrealistic for departments of psychology to expect research psychologists to stay informed about all the advances in statistical methods that apply to their field of research; therefore, departments must improve the profile of quantitative methods to ensure that adequate statistical resources are available to faculty. In this article, we discuss the challenges involved in improving the profile of quantitative methods given the drastic decreases in quantitative methods faculty, students, and graduate programs over the past couple decades, and discuss the importance of reversing this trend through improving awareness of the field of quantitative methods in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Confidentiality, ethics, and informed consent.

Comments on the article Protecting confidentiality rights: The need for an ethical practice model by Mary Alice Fisher (see record 2007-19520-001). In Fisher's excellent and much-needed article, she rightly implied that when discussing ethical dilemmas, psychologists may find themselves saying "consult an attorney" almost as often as they find themselves saying, "consult a fellow psychologist." Fisher's article was meant to turn the ship so to speak, by providing psychologists with a foundation for thinking clearly about confidentiality issues--a foundation that does not use legal arguments as primary building blocks. The above being said, we offer comments about four issues that we hope will add to the fine ideas expressed by Fisher. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Disciplinarity and methodology in intersectionality theory and research.

Comments on the original article, "Intersectionality and research in psychology," by E. R. Cole (see record 2009-04471-001). Cole’s article, says the current author, makes a welcome and valuable contribution to the field of psychology. Particularly useful are the three questions that she posed, highlighting how these questions are relevant and pressing for all researchers, not just those focused on work with subordinated groups. However, there are two additional points that the current author believes need to be addressed as intersectionality moves from the margins of psychology to the mainstream. First, although Cole (2009) nicely traced the history of intersectionality, from feminists of color and critical race theorists to psychology, what the current author found lacking was a discussion about the implications of translating the theory across disciplines. The current author's second point is a methodological one and is related to the disciplinary origins of intersectionality. The current author was surprised to see Cole (2009) discuss at length the role of statistical interactions in intersectionality research. While the current author fully appreciates that Cole may have been attempting to “speak the language” of the vast majority of psychologists, a crucial point about intersectionality research was lost: that qualitative research is central to this approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Alternatives to classical statistical procedures: Introduction to the symposium.

Most classical statistical methods are founded on two assumptions, that the underlying distribution is normally distributed, and that the sample observations are independently and identically distributed. It did not take statisticians long to realize that these idealizations may not be true in all applied settings. In addition, the good performance of these classical procedures requires strict adherence to these assumptions. Consequently, alternatives to the classical procedures have been proposed by statisticians. The purpose of this symposium is to begin a dialogue between quantitative methodologists and substantive psychological researchers (who are voracious consumers of the classical procedures) about alternatives to the classical methods. The first three papers (Hunter & May, Zumbo & Zimmerman, and May & Hunter) will discuss a class of methods referred to as nonparametric statistics. Nonparametric procedures arc an early and popular alternative to the classical procedures. Lind & Zumbo will discuss methods which are designed to deal with violations of normality. In closing, Thomas will discuss alternatives to classical statistical procedures when the second assumption is violated. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Statistical and Practical Significance in the IJPT: A Research Review from 1993-2003.

The reporting and interpretation of effect sizes in addition to statistical significance tests is becoming increasingly recognized as good research practice, as evidenced by the editorial policies of at least 23 journals that now require effect sizes. Statistical significance tests are limited in the information they provide readers about results, and effect sizes can be useful when evaluating result importance. The current article (a) summarizes statistical versus practical significance, (b) briefly discusses various effect size options, (c) presents a review of research articles published in the International Journal of Play Therapy (1993-2003) regarding use of effect sizes and statistical significance tests, and (d) provides recommendations for improved research practice in the journal and elsewhere. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Improving outcome research in rehabilitation psychology: Some methodological recommendations.

Reviews the value of null statistical hypothesis testing and discuss its limitations and misuses. It is contended that this method is of nominal utility in outcomes research, that rehabilitation researchers should focus on the calculation and interpretation of statistical power and effect size. During this era when outcomes are paramount, researchers in rehabilitation psychology cannot afford to conduct studies where significant methodological shortcomings compromise the validity of the results. Study design, evaluation, and presentation recommendations for the appropriate use and interpretation of statistical analysis in outcomes research are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The evidence missing from evidence-based practice.

Comments on the report by the APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (see record 2006-05893-001) entitled Evidence-based practice in psychology. Regrettably, the task force report was largely silent on three critical issues. As a consequence, it omitted much of the evidence necessary for a complete picture of evidence-based practice. First, the task force report did not operationalize "evidence." Second, the task force report did not address the crucial problem of iatrogenic treatments. Third, the task force report said little about the necessity for ongoing objective evaluation of clinical cases, which is critical to ethically responsible services. Current debate centers on how research findings should be factored into interventions, not on whether it is necessary to do so. Rather than waiting for the resolution of competing views on the matter, psychologists bear an ethical obligation to offer evidence-informed services. Three critical steps that were largely neglected by the task force report can go far toward helping psychologists honor that commitment: (a) providing a clearer operationalization of scientific evidence, (b) using current research to rule out the use of potentially harmful methods, and (c) using objective criteria to evaluate all of their cases on an ongoing basis. These steps, in turn, clarify the menu of options available to therapists, help protect clients from harm, and offer the advantage of allowing clinicians to contribute to the growing body of knowledge about what does and does not work in psychotherapy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reply to Professor Bechtoldt's critique.

Presents a reply regarding Bechtoldt's critique (see record 1960-06754-001) of the article by Haggard et al. (see record 1960-00131-001). True, many of the comments in his section on "Factor Analytic Techniques" are interesting and informative--and generally corrective--but they are also essentially irrelevant to our paper and its purpose. There is clear difference of opinion as to whether, when, or what factor analytic techniques should be used in particular cases. Some of Bechtoldt's remarks in his sections entitled "Direct Correlation Methods'and "Concluding Remarks" call for more specific comment, primarily because I think he misses the point from time to time. Bechtoldt has us on the ropes when he cites the statement "with the procedures discussed thus far, it is not possible to form groups around such a priori profiles." We should have said "not practicable" (instead of using the too strong term "not possible") to indicate that, for the majority of research workers, these procedures are not possible from a practical point of view. In his concluding paragraph, he appears to chide us (following his phrase "other technically questionable discussions") for possibly suggesting "the testing of statistical hypotheses using sets of related observations." We took pains to observe that, although multivariate data can be analyzed properly only by the appropriate multivariate statistical techniques, approximate produres for pattern analytic studies are available which utilize most of the information in the data without violating certain important statistical assumptions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sexual abuse, family environment, and psychological symptoms: On the validity of statistical control.

M. R. Nash et al (see record 1993-33781-001) reported on the effects of controlling for family environment when studying sexual abuse sequelae. Sexual abuse history was associated with elevated MMPI and Rorschach scores in a sample of 105 women, but many of the reported differences disappeared when a composite Family Functioning Scale score was used as a covariate. The present article considers the findings of Nash et al in terms of the theoretical and statistical constraints placed on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and other partializing procedures. Because family dysfunction is not always causally antecedent to sexual abuse, and given the quasi-experimental quality of most abuse research, the use of covariate techniques to test hypotheses about the causal role of family environment in the impacts of sexual abuse may be ill advised. Analyses of a 2,964-S data set illustrate these concerns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychometric truths in the absence of psychological meaning: A reply to Zuckerman and Knee.

M. Zuckerman and C. R. Knee (see record 199601769-012) contend that the relationship we reported between self-enhancement and psychological maladjustment (C. R. Colvin, J. Block, D. C. Funder; see record 1995-33022-001) is "not warranted" because a difference score was used to operationalize self-enhancement. In this article we discuss the issues raised by Zuckerman and Knee, the warnings historically issued about the use of difference scores, and the problems associated with alternative statistical procedures. We conclude that difference scores can provide statistically valid and psychologically meaningful results. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some more fundamental problems in clinical research: Comment on “Statistical significance testing and clinical trials”.

Comments on an article "Statistical significance testing and clinical trials" by Merton S. Krause (see record 2011-19228-002). The article provides a thought-provoking and critical discussion of the conventional statistical testing in clinical research. Krause argues that, by focusing exclusively on mean differences between groups and their statistical significance, important information about the individual participant is being ignored. This article argues a few central issues with Krause's article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)