Methods as tools a response to O'Keefe

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

O'Keefe argues that the logic of experiment-wise error correction is flawed, presenting a number of counterexamples as evidence for his claim. He asserts that there is no consistent principle that discriminates legitimate from absurd uses of this logic. I supply such a principle and defend it with his own counterexamples. In sum, O'Keefe's critique raises important methodological questions, provokes discussion that may help answer them, but goes too far in indicting the logic of experiment-wise error correction.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)448-454
Number of pages7
JournalHuman Communication Research
Volume29
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2003

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Methods as tools a response to O'Keefe'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this