In the Eye of the Beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)

@article{citeulike:770930, abstract = {H. Bosch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) meta-analysis, which demonstrated (a) a small but highly significant overall effect, (b) a small-study effect, and (c) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked widely differing responses. After considering D. B. Wilson and W. R. Shadish's (2006) and D. Radin, R. Nelson, Y. Dobyns, and J. Houtkooper's (2006) concerns about the possible effects of psychological moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the difficulties inherent in any meta-analytic data, the authors reaffirm their view that publication bias is the most parsimonious model to account for all 3 findings. However, until compulsory registration of trials occurs, it cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to publication bias, and it remains up to the individual reader to decide how the results are best and most parsimoniously interpreted.}, author = {Bosch, Holger and Steinkamp, Fiona and Boller, Emil }, citeulike-article-id = {770930}, doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.533}, journal = {Psychological Bulletin}, keywords = {meta, meta-analysis, psychokinesis, random, randomness, reply}, month = {July}, number = {4}, pages = {533--537}, posted-at = {2006-07-24 10:39:22}, priority = {2}, title = {In the Eye of the Beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006)}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.533}, volume = {132}, year = {2006} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:770930 L3 - citeulike-article-id:770930 TI - In the Eye of the Beholder: Reply to Wilson and Shadish (2006) and Radin, Nelson, Dobyns, and Houtkooper (2006) JF - Psychological Bulletin VL - 132 IS - 4 SP - 533 EP - 537 N2 - H. Bosch, F. Steinkamp, and E. Boller's (2006) meta-analysis, which demonstrated (a) a small but highly significant overall effect, (b) a small-study effect, and (c) extreme heterogeneity, has provoked widely differing responses. After considering D. B. Wilson and W. R. Shadish's (2006) and D. Radin, R. Nelson, Y. Dobyns, and J. Houtkooper's (2006) concerns about the possible effects of psychological moderator variables, the potential for missing data, and the difficulties inherent in any meta-analytic data, the authors reaffirm their view that publication bias is the most parsimonious model to account for all 3 findings. However, until compulsory registration of trials occurs, it cannot be proven that the effect is in fact attributable to publication bias, and it remains up to the individual reader to decide how the results are best and most parsimoniously interpreted. KW - meta KW - meta-analysis KW - psychokinesis KW - random KW - randomness KW - reply AU - Bosch, Holger AU - Steinkamp, Fiona AU - Boller, Emil PY - 2006/07// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.533 ER -