[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Jackie,
Prof. Iacono claims that his survey and the Gallup survey had nearly
identical results while Honts' survey was significantly different, probably
because of a poor response. Yet the Gallup survey found confidence in
polygraph results among the best-informed respondents. But Iacono claims to
have found the exact reverse: results "were not significantly different
from those of less
well informed respondents for almost all of the questions, including the one
about which of the 4 statements 'best describes your own opinion of
polygraph test interpretations' that was asked on all three surveys."
Prof. Iacono did not say the Gallup survey misrepresented the findings or
that Honts misrepresented the Gallup survey. It appears Prof. Honts would
have found that OJ passed his polygraph.
I find it strange that Prof. Iacono lays down conditions for sharing his
research data that includes requiring that Honts go through a committee at
the university. Was he afraid his data would be stolen? Since he had the
original it could not be misrepresented for long.
No one can argue that leaving Honts off his survey would have an appreciable
effect on the accuracy of the survey but that is the only statement that
Prof. Iacono makes that is not very questionable.
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Hi all
>
>I promise to let you know what Iacono replied if he did. Here it is
verbatim, I
>copied it and insert his reply. (Aren't you proud of me Kathy). Happy
>reading!!
>
>jackief
>
>
>
>William G. Iacono wrote:
>
>> Thanks for sending me the info on Honts criticisms of our work. The
>> criticisms are without merit and hardly deserve acknowledgement, and I don't
>> have time to point out why all of them are off base. But consider the
>> following...
>>
>> In the published account of the survey (Journal of Applied Psychology,
>> 1997), we point out that because the survey was prepared for a book chapter
>> that Raskin, Honts and Kircher as well as Iacono and Lykken were
>> contributing to, we eliminated ourselves as well as them from the survey
>> pool (presumably our opinions were well represented in our contributions to
>> this book). Since there were almost 200 hundred respondents to the survey,
>> it is not possible for the elimination of ourselves or them to have had any
>> significant effect on the outcome.
>>
>> Second, we agreed to share the data with Honts and Amato provided certain
>> conditions were met, such as there having their request reviewed by their
>> university IRB (the Board that approves research with humans as meeting
>> ethical standards). Apparently they didn't like the conditions.
>>
>> Third, when we examined the results of our survey for just well informed
>> respondents, the results were not significantly different from those of less
>> well informed respondents for almost all of the questions, including the one
>> about which of the 4 statements "best describes your own opinion of
>> polygraph test interpretations" that was asked on all three surveys. In the
>> Gallup survey, comparing more informed to less informed respondents also
>> produced no significant differences as a result of how informed respondents
>> were. Only the Amato and Honts survey, to which only a third of those polled
>> responded, found a difference between more and less informed respondents.
>> This response anomaly is most likely due to their having a sample that is
>> not comparable to those in the other two surveys because it is not
>> representative.
>>
>> I hope this information is useful to you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>In the sociology room the children learn
>that even dreams are colored by your perspective
>
>I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
>
>
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
>
>
Best, Terry
"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
