Hi
A directional test is based on the expectation for a particular hypothesis and
does NOT state that the opposite pattern could NEVER occur even with other
confounding factors, as in the therapeutic touch example. You state that in
fact detection can occur under the conditions stated, which I
On 13 Jan 2009 at 16:52, Paul C Bernhardt wrote:
>> Presumably, doing worse than chance would be meaningless. Out of the
280
> trials provided by the practitioners, they guessed correctly 123 times, 44%.
> Obviously, this was a result in the opposite direction of the one tailed
> test and is not
By the way, lest anyone be confused by my post, I am not a promoter of
Therapeutic Touch or similar. It is entirely bogus in my view.
We were just surprised that the findings did not represent the detection
rate of hands that would be expected due to normal sensing of the warmth of
hands at a dist
I'll grant you that these examples appear quite reasonable to be one tailed
tests. And, I'll describe another that appears, also, to be reasonably one
tailed test and was published that way.
Some of you may remember the study of Therapeutic Touch done by a 13 year
old (at the time) young girl and
Hi
James M. Clark
Professor of Psychology
204-786-9757
204-774-4134 Fax
j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca
Department of Psychology
University of Winnipeg
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3B 2E9
CANADA
>>> "Wuensch, Karl L" 11-Jan-09 10:57 AM >>>
First, a trivial point. The F test employed in traditional
ANO
First, a trivial point. The F test employed in traditional
ANOVA is a one-tailed test -- regardless of the ordering of the
differences among the group means, greater differences lead to a larger
F. Accordingly, it is a one-tailed, upper-tailed, test. It could be
done as a lower-tailed t
