Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Type: Journal article
Title: Testing the storm et al.(2010) meta-analysis using bayesian and frequentist approaches: Reply to rouder et al.(2013)
Author: Storm, L.
Tressoldi, P.
Utts, J.
Citation: Psychological Bulletin, 2013; 139(1):248-254
Publisher: Amer Psychological Assoc
Issue Date: 2013
ISSN: 0033-2909
Statement of
Storm, Lance; Tressoldi, Patrizio E.; Utts, Jessica
Abstract: Rouder, Morey, and Province (2013) stated that (a) the evidence-based case for psi in Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio's (2010) meta-analysis is supported only by a number of studies that used manual randomization, and (b) when these studies are excluded so that only investigations using automatic randomization are evaluated (and some additional studies previously omitted by Storm et al., 2010, are included), the evidence for psi is “unpersuasive.” Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld. Because of recent updates and corrections, we reassessed the free-response databases of Storm et al. using a frequentist approach. We discuss and critique the assumptions and findings of Rouder et al.
Keywords: Bayesian analysis
Null hypothesis significance testing
Rights: PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved
DOI: 10.1037/a0029506
Published version:
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest
Psychology publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.