Edev_502 response wk7_3

I fully concur with you that D&H’s design is insightful. It would have been better for them to have had the same degree of consideration over the presentation of their results. Frankly, I’m surprised that the Science editors let the graph pass the editorial process.

When I wrote that there was no pre-test, I meant that there was no test that tested the participants in Study 1 that acted as a baseline for comparison with their Study 1 results following a standard pretest-posttest design. Do you consider a screening procedure for a study appropriacy to be the same as a pre-test?

Study 1 results showed a very narrow difference at the very low end of the achievement scale. D&H’s insistence on statistical significance falls prey to a classic error: mistaking significance for importance. The p-value may be very low, but all that does is indicate the certainty that there’s a difference between the groups. The real difference between these groups, however, is minimal.

Jim

About theCaledonian

Scot living in north Japan teaching at a national university.
This entry was posted in EDEV_502, individual differences and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s