I want to thank everyone for the input to answering the questions. Most of these issues were as I thought although Mike raised some interesting perspectives regarding definitions of terms as these might affect the overall discussion, especially of point #1. Thanks to Miguel and Chris for specific references. Ah! ammunition is always good to have.
I also thought that Mike's comments were quite interesting about effect sizes, and in particular how each study needs to be considered for its own merit in terms of these. (cf the aspirin studies) Finally, the whole thing about IV/DV or criterion versus predictor variables is an interesting discussion. I was not aware that outside of psychology this is sort of "no big deal". No wonder when science reporters read about IVs in correlational studies they draw causal conclusions. I can see why confusion would ensue even if we want to argue that some causal relationship on a micro-level. Since I needed all of this information for a dissertation I am reading as an outside member, I think that in the context of a dissertation I will be a bit stricter than I might otherwise have been and will ask the candidate at minimum to have a brief side discussion of the terminology and her decision for the choice she makes in using it. Thanks--you guys are great! Widely varied questions but great answers all around. Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
