On a failure to replicate: methodologically close, but not close enough. A response to hogben et al.
On a failure to replicate: methodologically close, but not close enough. A response to hogben et al.
复制标题
关于复制失败：方法论上接近，但还不够接近。
DOI：
10.1016/0042-6989(95)00224-3
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
May,JG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Williams,MC;May,JG
威廉姆斯，布兰南和拉蒂格（1987）（临床视觉科学，1，367-371）报告说，穷人的读者需要明显更长的时间来搜索字母阵列的目标比良好的读者。此外，他们报告说，模糊字母阵列会导致阅读能力差的人搜索时间更快，并且会失去使用非模糊显示器所看到的组之间的显著差异。在最近的一次重复这些发现的尝试中，Hogben等人（1996）（Vision Research，36，1503-1507）发现，使用非模糊阵列的好读者和差读者之间的检索率没有差异，使用模糊阵列的两组之间的检索率也没有差异。在这篇文章中，我们比较了这两个研究工作，并在同一主题的第三篇论文，关于方法的因素，试图了解这两个不同的结果是如何发生的。我们认为，这两个研究中使用的字母间距可能解释了差异，并应成为未来研究的重点。
Williams, Brannan and Lartigue (1987) (Clinical Vision Science, 1, 367–371) reported that poor readers took significantly longer to search letter arrays for a target than did good readers. In addition, they reported that blurring the letter arrays leads to faster search times for poor readers and a loss of the significant differences between the groups seen with unblurred displays. In a recent attempt to replicate these findings, Hogben el al. (1996) (Vision Research, 36, 1503–1507) found no differences in search rates between good and poor readers using unblurred arrays, and no differences in search rate between the groups when blurred arrays were used. In the present article, we have compared these two research efforts, and a third paper on the same topic, with regard to methodological factors in an attempt to understand how these two different results could occur. It is our belief that the letter spacing employed in the two studies may account for the difference and should be the focus of future studies of the original effect.