So what can be done to make this point the focus of the media response
to the "30% of studies are wrong" story (rather than the "some studies
were too small", the "some studies were deliberately manipulated by the
drug companies" and the "and therefore we shouldn't trust research at
all, and go with our intuitions instead" responses)?
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
Stephen Black wrote:
My suggestion is that the problem lies with the original work being
correlational and the later work randomized. Note that for one of the
studies, the claim is for a "more rigorous" study.
It's dismaying how the literature (medical and psychological) is
stuffed with studies drawing causal conclusions from correlational
data. Oh, they usually bury a disclaimer somewhere in their paper,
but that's not what they emphasize in their conclusions and that's
not what they say when they talk to the press.
Consequently, the chickens come home to roost when a randomized study
is done.
Stephen
___________________________________________________
Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7
Canada
Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm
_______________________________________________
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
