Given the typical power of behavioral research, the expected outcome of an attempt to replicate a study which correctly identified an effect is failure, that is, a type II error. There is no need to speculate about moderating factors that might have differed between the original research and the attempt to replicate -- in fact, much time and space in discussion sections is wasted with such unnecessary speculations.
Karl W. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 2:24 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Failure to replicate I do not quite agree that the failure to replicate (as in the Miller anhd DiCara studies) is ground for questioning the validity of a study.A replication may not be equivalent to the original study.Subject variables and environmental variables may vary.It could be that the targeted replicated subjects may be afrom a different gene pool.And there is always the possibility that the original finding was a fluke of nature or special circumstanceYogis have been known to exert control over alleged autonomic functions. And as farfetched this may sound-who polices the intravenous procedurs to avoid contamination.I doubt there is a new needle or vial for each subject. Michael Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida " Sleepless in Daytona" --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
