Talk:Abel screening: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m Talk:Abel Screening moved to Talk:Abel screening |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Can someone make this flow better? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | Can someone make this flow better? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
"Further, there was no evidence indicating that the study itself had been rigorously examined (for instance, through the process of peer review) and nothing to show "the significance of a subject viewing slides of children for '''one-third''' as long as [the study subject] viewed slides of adults" -- the "fail" score that Abel derived from the study."[http://masscases.com/cases/app/63/63massappct171.html] | |||
Does this mean that viewing children and adults for equal lengths won't work? [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
:From what I have heard about the test, it looks as if this is a typing error. Significance would mean +1/3 on child stimuli. [[User:The Admins|The Admins]] 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:13, 13 June 2009
Can someone make this flow better? Rez (The Administrators - anonym) 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Further, there was no evidence indicating that the study itself had been rigorously examined (for instance, through the process of peer review) and nothing to show "the significance of a subject viewing slides of children for one-third as long as [the study subject] viewed slides of adults" -- the "fail" score that Abel derived from the study."[1]
Does this mean that viewing children and adults for equal lengths won't work? Jillium 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- From what I have heard about the test, it looks as if this is a typing error. Significance would mean +1/3 on child stimuli. The Admins 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)