> ----------
> >From: Michael Sylvester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > what can be the various explanations why some studies have not
> > been replicated, or attempts at replication were made with inconsistent
> > results?
>
On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, John Serafin wrote:
>
> When two or more studies show different outcomes, there may be any number of
> reasons <snip>
One reason I haven't seen anyone advance is that a study may not
replicate because it's not replicable. Because of the pressure to
report positive results, analysis is sometimes an exercise in
achieving significance no matter what. There may really be nothing
there. There are numerous examples, including, for one, the infamous
Mozart effect.
A possible new example is the recent paper by Maurer et al (1999).
They reported the startling finding that as little as one hour of
patterned visual stimulation after the birth of a baby with cataracts
improves vision, a result which received wide attention in the press.
Yet the paper is sprinkled with one-tailed tests, without a single
word of justification. I've complained to _Science_ in a
letter-to-the-editor (don't hold your breath, though).
Maurer, D. et al (1999). Rapid improvement in the acuity of infants
after visual input. Science, 286, 108--
See also:
Sireteanu, R. (1999). Switching on the infant brain [news analysis
on p. 59 of the same issue]
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen 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 Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
