THIS (METHOD) IS (NOT) FINE.

In their response to my criticism of their recent article in Journal of Biosocial Science (te Nijenhuis et al., 2017), te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek (2018) raise four points none of which concerns my main point that the method of correlated vectors (MCV) applied to item-level data represents a flawe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Biosocial Science Vol. 50; no. 6; pp. 872 - 875
Autor principal: Wicherts, Jelte M.
Formato: commentary Journal Article
Publicado: Cambridge University Press Nov2018
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=134667455&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 134667455
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00219320
        FZZ
      jtl: Journal of Biosocial Science
      issn: 00219320
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Nov2018
      vid: 50
      iid: 6
      pid: 15979
      pub: Cambridge University Press
    artinfo:
      ui:
        134667455
        134667455
        NLM30015605
        134667455
        10.1017/S0021932018000184
        NLM30015605
        134667455
      ppf: 872
      ppct: 3
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: THIS (METHOD) IS (NOT) FINE.
      aug:
        au: Wicherts, Jelte M.
        affil: Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands
      sug:
        subj:
          Adolescence
          Child
          Saudi Arabia
          Adolescent: 13-18 years
          Child: 6-12 years
      ab: In their response to my criticism of their recent article in Journal of Biosocial Science (te Nijenhuis et al., 2017), te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek (2018) raise four points none of which concerns my main point that the method of correlated vectors (MCV) applied to item-level data represents a flawed method. Here, I discuss te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek's four points. First, I argue that my previous application of MCV to item-level data showed that the method can yield nonsensical results. Second, I note that meta-analytic corrections for sampling error, imperfect measures, restriction of range and unreliability of the vectors are futile and cannot help fix the method. Third, I note that even with perfect data, the method can yield negative correlations. Fourth, I highlight the irrelevance of te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek (2018)'s point that my comment had not been published in a peerreviewed journal by referring to my articles in 2009 and 2017 on MCV in peer-reviewed journals.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        commentary
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N