Admittedly, I havenât much followed this thread, but if we canât talk about 2.2 chairs, what does that mean for just about all published data on memory? For example, proportion of words recalled almost always translates to some fraction of words (e.g. 6.2), even though all subjects obviously recalled in whole numbers.
Just a wondering. Patrick __ Patrick O. Dolan, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Psychology Drew University 973-408-3558 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Don Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:07:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: First Solid Evidence that the Study of Music Promotes Intellectual Development To talk about Ss sitting 2.2 seats away is meaningless. No one sits ".2" seats away from anyone else (unless it's on a bench). They either sat in chair 1 or chair 2 etc. If we called them chair A, chair B etc. it would be the same thing but no one would ever report the Ss as sitting A.2 chairs away. I think that it's perfectly OK to treat discrete data as continuous when there is a clear underlying continuum (e.g. age in years) but not when there is no real continuum. Had they asked people to sit in a bench & measured the distance in cms I wouldn't have had a problem with the analysis, however in this case I do. Maybe I'm just overly fussy but I think that their design doesn't fully meet the requirements for a parametric analysis. -Don. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
