REPLY Testing the Storm

Abstract

Rouder, Morey, and Province (2013) stated that (a) the evidence-based case for psi in Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio’s (2010) meta-analysis is supported only by a number of studies that used manual randomization, and (b) when these studies are excluded so that only investigations using automatic randomization are evaluated (and some additional studies previously omitted by Storm et al., 2010, are included), the evidence for psi is “unpersuasive.” Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld. Because of recent updates and corrections, we reassessed the free-response databases of Storm et al. using a frequentist approach. We discuss and critique the assumptions and findings of Rouder et al.

6 Figures and Tables

Cite this paper

@inproceedings{Storm2012REPLYTT, title={REPLY Testing the Storm}, author={Lance Storm and Patrizio Tressoldi and Jessica M Utts}, year={2012} }