[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
Hi Jackie,
At the risk of showing admiration I wanted to congratulate you on getting
this kind of first hand information for us. Even though you had
effectively blown the other side out of the water with your other
references, this really puts the icing on the cake.
Good job!
Your admirer,
Bill
On Sat, 04 Apr 1998 18:39:20 -0600 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi all
>
>I promise to let you know what Iacono replied if he did. Here it is
>verbatim, I
>copied it and insert his reply. (Aren't you proud of me Kathy).
>Happy
>reading!!
>
>jackief
>
>
>
>William G. Iacono wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sending me the info on Honts criticisms of our work. The
>> criticisms are without merit and hardly deserve acknowledgement, and
>I don't
>> have time to point out why all of them are off base. But consider
>the
>> following...
>>
>> In the published account of the survey (Journal of Applied
>Psychology,
>> 1997), we point out that because the survey was prepared for a book
>chapter
>> that Raskin, Honts and Kircher as well as Iacono and Lykken were
>> contributing to, we eliminated ourselves as well as them from the
>survey
>> pool (presumably our opinions were well represented in our
>contributions to
>> this book). Since there were almost 200 hundred respondents to the
>survey,
>> it is not possible for the elimination of ourselves or them to have
>had any
>> significant effect on the outcome.
>>
>> Second, we agreed to share the data with Honts and Amato provided
>certain
>> conditions were met, such as there having their request reviewed by
>their
>> university IRB (the Board that approves research with humans as
>meeting
>> ethical standards). Apparently they didn't like the conditions.
>>
>> Third, when we examined the results of our survey for just well
>informed
>> respondents, the results were not significantly different from those
>of less
>> well informed respondents for almost all of the questions, including
>the one
>> about which of the 4 statements "best describes your own opinion of
>> polygraph test interpretations" that was asked on all three surveys.
>In the
>> Gallup survey, comparing more informed to less informed respondents
>also
>> produced no significant differences as a result of how informed
>respondents
>> were. Only the Amato and Honts survey, to which only a third of
>those polled
>> responded, found a difference between more and less informed
>respondents.
>> This response anomaly is most likely due to their having a sample
>that is
>> not comparable to those in the other two surveys because it is not
>> representative.
>>
>> I hope this information is useful to you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>In the sociology room the children learn
>that even dreams are colored by your perspective
>
>I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
>
>
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
