Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comments: Multiple Comparisons in Research: A Response to a Comment:

Comments: Multiple Comparisons in Research: A Response to a Comment: American Educational Research Journal Multiple Comparisons in Research: A Response to a Comment Carve r (1968) criticized the multiple-comparison schema that we presented (Hopkins and Chadbourn, 1967) for not resolving issues in th e Neyman-Pearson versus Bayesian debate. We readily acknowledge this "defect" in our effort and make no apology for the fact that the schema fits the Fisherian experimental strategy that characterizes most current empirical behavioral research. The purpose of the schema is to provide the practicing researcher with guidelines that will assist him in identifying the multiple-comparison method best for his purposes. Since certain of Carver's misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the schema might encourage continued use of the multiple t-test rathe r than another method which would be more satisfactory for the researcher's purposes, we feel obligated to respond to his comment. (Ironically, one of Carver's criticisms is almost a quote from our article. He takes issue with the schema since "it makes statistics the maste r instead of the slave ... " (Carver, 1968, p. 731), whereas we stated ".. . statistics should be the researcher's slave, not his master" (Hopkins and Chadbourn, 1967, p. 407).) Carve r claims that the schema makes a priori hypotheses http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Educational Research Journal SAGE

Comments: Multiple Comparisons in Research: A Response to a Comment:

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/comments-multiple-comparisons-in-research-a-response-to-a-comment-WQcvTVwjYN

References (3)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 by American Educational Research Association
ISSN
0002-8312
eISSN
1935-1011
DOI
10.3102/00028312006004704
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

American Educational Research Journal Multiple Comparisons in Research: A Response to a Comment Carve r (1968) criticized the multiple-comparison schema that we presented (Hopkins and Chadbourn, 1967) for not resolving issues in th e Neyman-Pearson versus Bayesian debate. We readily acknowledge this "defect" in our effort and make no apology for the fact that the schema fits the Fisherian experimental strategy that characterizes most current empirical behavioral research. The purpose of the schema is to provide the practicing researcher with guidelines that will assist him in identifying the multiple-comparison method best for his purposes. Since certain of Carver's misinterpretations or misrepresentations of the schema might encourage continued use of the multiple t-test rathe r than another method which would be more satisfactory for the researcher's purposes, we feel obligated to respond to his comment. (Ironically, one of Carver's criticisms is almost a quote from our article. He takes issue with the schema since "it makes statistics the maste r instead of the slave ... " (Carver, 1968, p. 731), whereas we stated ".. . statistics should be the researcher's slave, not his master" (Hopkins and Chadbourn, 1967, p. 407).) Carve r claims that the schema makes a priori hypotheses

Journal

American Educational Research JournalSAGE

Published: Jun 24, 2016

There are no references for this article.