Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):211-211 (1998)
|Abstract||The usefulness of effect-size differs in utilitarian experiments from its use in theory corroborations. Chow introduces the question of the relationship of effect-size to practical validity and the role of the assessment of “importance” in this. This review develops this question and suggests the actuarial table as a replacement for effect-size in practical decision-making.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephan Lewandowsky & Murray Maybery (1998). The Critics Rebutted: A Pyrrhic Victory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):210-211.
Charles S. Cockell (2008). Environmental Ethics and Size. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 23-39.
Marc Orlitzky (2001). Does Firm Size Comfound the Relationship Between Corporate Social Performance and Firm Financial Performance? Journal of Business Ethics 33 (2):167 - 180.
Helen E. Ross (2003). Neurological Models of Size Scaling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (4):425-425.
Douglas Wahlsten & Katherine M. Bishop (1998). Effect Sizes and Meta-Analysis Indicate No Sex Dimorphism in the Human or Rodent Corpus Callosum. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (3):338-339.
Niels G. Waller & Wesley O. Johnson (1998). The Non-Significance of Straw Man Arguments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):226-227.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #246,863 of 741,433 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,802 of 741,433 )
How can I increase my downloads?