Corrections to Raaijmakers (2003)

• Published in: Canadian journal of experimental psychology 2013-03, Vol.67 (1), p.59-59
• Main Author: Raaijmakers, Jeroen G. W.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Experimental Design; Language; Statistical Analysis
• ISSN: 1196-1961; 1878-7290
• DOI: 10.1037/a0032114

Reports an error in "A further look at the "language-as-fixed-effect fallacy"" by Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers ( Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 2003[Sep], Vol 57[3], 141-151). The corrected version of Table 7 is listed below. The accompanying text on p. 147 should read: “For these data, F’ = 5.95 ( df= 1,7). Using either the statistics from Table 7 or by running separate subjects and item analyses, we obtain F 1= 1157.1 ( df= 1,3) and F₂= 5.97 ( df= 1,7). This leads to minF ’ 5.94 ( df =1,7).” The conclusions drawn from this example are not affected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2003-08374-003.) The proper analysis of experiments using language materials has been a source of controversy and debate among researchers. We summarize the main issues and discuss the solutions that have been presented. Even though the major issues have been dealt with extensively in the literature, there still exists quite a bit of confusion about how to analyze the data from such experiments. We discuss a number of the most frequently voiced objections. In particular, we discuss the issue of what happens if in a counterbalanced design only some of the items show the treatment effect. Finally, a possible solution is discussed for the case where only partial matching of items between conditions is possible. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) (Source: journal abstract)