08-06-2012, 11:39 AM
| || |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Originally Posted by fls
I realize that is your position. As far as I can tell, there isn't any new information in this paper to alter the situation. So I was wondering why you intimated that there was.
That is, of course, true of all scientific review papers!
Nevertheless, review papers are often useful in science because they bring together a lot of results and allow patterns emerge. One of the interesting features of these experiments, is that the effect sizes are fairly consistent, and seem to rise as the quality of the study increases (I don't know quite how that was measured objectively).
If I were a psychologist who used SCL measurements (or some of the other measurements discussed) as an experimental tool in conventional experiments, I'd be pretty worried as to what those results mean!