The other way to increase effect size would be to improve experimental control
(procedure).
That would be consistent with this being basically a pilot study.
On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Christopher Green wrote:
> Wow. In an era where repeated failures to replicate “sensational”
> psychologic
Wow. In an era where repeated failures to replicate “sensational” psychological
effects is all over the news, it is astonishing that any editor would have
accepted this sloppy of argument (whether the can cite articles from the 1960s
and ‘70s that used it as well or not). The solution to high Ty
/DrFroman
-Original Message-
From: Rick Froman [mailto:rfro...@jbu.edu]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:00 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] curious statistical reasoning
I think the main point is that this was basically designed to be a small
http://bit.ly/DrFroman
-Original Message-
From: Jim Clark [mailto:j.cl...@uwinnipeg.ca]
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 4:18 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] curious statistical reasoning
Hi
Seems like they could have gotten to the same point (perhaps)
Hi
Seems like they could have gotten to the same point (perhaps) by using a
directional hypothesis given points 1 & 2? Unless the .10 is directional and
the non-directional p is .20?
3 does not make a lot of sense to me given p is sensitive to n?
4 might be an appropriate consideration given th
