PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO KNOW EVERYTHING
PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BETTER NOT TO KNOW EVERYTHING
复制标题
DOI：
10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167
复制
发表时间：
1977-01-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
BAER, DM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
BAER, DM
行为实验中评估个体-受试者设计数据的统计方法的出现，引起了对群体设计范式和个体-受试者设计范式的常用研究策略的比较。这种比较可能取决于分配类型1和类型2错误概率的概念。个体-被试设计通常被解释为隐含的、极低概率的第一类错误和相应的高概率的第二类错误。群体设计通常用明确的、适度低概率的第一类错误来解释，而不像在其他范式中那样具有高概率的第二类错误。以概率尺度上的百分位数来考虑，这种差异可能很小。当从每个范式可能产生的实质性结果类型来解释它时，似乎个人-主体-设计范式更有可能为行为技术的发展做出贡献，并且建议不应放弃这一方向。
The advent of statistical methods for evaluating the data of individual-subject designs in behavioral experiments invites a comparison of the usual research tactics of the group-design paradigm and the individual-subject-design paradigm. That comparison can hinge on the concept of assiging probabilities of type 1 and type 2 errors. Individual-subject designs are usually interpreted with implicit, very low probabilities of type 1 errors, and correspondingly high probabilities of type 2 errors. Group designs are usually interpreted with explicit, moderately low probabilities of type 1 errors, and with not such high probabilities of type 2 errors as in the other paradigm. This difference may be a minor one, considered in terms of centiles on a probability scale. When it is interpreted in terms of the substantive types of results likely to be produced by each paradigm, it appears that the individual-subject-design paradigm is more likely to contribute to the development of a technology of behavior, and it is suggested that this orientation should not be abandoned.