Here's one that is intriguing because the finding is one that skeptics agree with because it attempts to debunk the main supporting 'theory' of therapeutic touch. The problems with the study design and analysis are numerous.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/13/1005.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Close+look+at+therapeutic+touch&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT Here is what I wrote here on TIPS in 2009: Some of you may remember the study of Therapeutic Touch done by a 13 year old (at the time) young girl and her parents as part of a science fair project (initially). The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Rosa, Rosa, Sarner & Barrett, 1998). Twenty-one self-represented Therapeutic Touch practitioners had to state which of their hands the child had positioned her hand above (determined randomly, and obscured by an opaque partition). If the TT practitioner was skilled at detecting the purported Human Energy Field, they should get more than 50% correct. Presumably, doing worse than chance would be meaningless. Out of the 280 trials provided by the practitioners, they guessed correctly 123 times, 44%. Obviously, this was a result in the opposite direction of the one tailed test and is not meaningful. Or is it? Turns out that 123 hits out of 280 attempts just breaks below a .05 two tailed test of significance by a binomial test. Hmmm.... Turns out I was two degrees of separation from the Rosa study, they were known by a buddy of mine. We were skeptical. That one tailed test bothered us. So, we started doing some studies of our own. Turns out without any interceding material (cloth, glass, etc) between the hands, at the distance of separation used in Rosa, et al. we should have expected better than 50% hits. People can sense the warmth of a hand even up to 5 or 6 inches away. So, how come the below chance finding of Rosa, et al? We know they used verbal instructions and we suspect they directed their voice away from the target hand (certainly unintentionally). We attempted that kind of procedure and replicated their findings pretty closely, coming in at 39%. Turns out a reasonable speculation is experimenter error, which should have been detected, and a two tailed test would have done so. You can see our study in Long, Bernhardt & Evans, 2000, a chapter in Therapeutic Touch, edited by Bela Scheiber & Carla Selby. Prometheus Books. I modified the above slightly for clarity since I was the original author. Here is the Long, Bernhardt, and Evans article from its first publication in Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. I did the statistical analysis and consulted on the design of the procedure. http://goo.gl/UqaN3 Paul On Mar 27, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > I've been asked to cover the last few classes in Research Methods, which I > have never taught (or at least not in living memory). I wonder if people > have examples of poorly designed studies that lend themselves to brief > descriptions? > > Thanks > Jim > > > James M. Clark > Professor of Psychology > 204-786-9757 > 204-774-4134 Fax > [email protected] > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. > To unsubscribe click here: > http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003&n=T&l=tips&o=16968 > or send a blank email to > leave-16968-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=16970 or send a blank email to leave-16970-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
