NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1006424
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2013-Jan
Pages: 7
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 35
ISSN: ISSN-0033-2909
Testing the Storm et al. (2010) Meta-Analysis Using Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches: Reply to Rouder et al. (2013)
Storm, Lance; Tressoldi, Patrizio E.; Utts, Jessica
Psychological Bulletin, v139 n1 p248-254 Jan 2013
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. (Contains 3 tables, 1 figure and 7 footnotes.)
American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Opinion Papers
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A