Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chow, S. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Conceptual Rigor versus Practical Impact

Siu L. Chow

University Of Regina

The argument that empirical studies should be appraised in terms of multiple context-dependent criteria is reviewed. A distinction is made between `practical impact' appraisal and `conceptual rigor' assessment. The idea of replacing a test of statistical significance with multiple criteria is assessed and found inappropriate when we are concerned with conceptual rigor. A test of statistical significance can be profitably used to ascertain whether or not a theory is tenable vis-a-vis a set of experimental data. It is an indispensable step in the multi-step theory-corroboration procedure which is hypothetico-deductive in nature. The binary nature of a significance test is compatible with the evolving nature of scientific knowledge, which should be based on internally and externally valid research results. The use of multiple context-dependent criteria of impressiveness, on the other hand, is antithetical to the requirements of internal validity and of external validity. A case is made that criticisms of the use of significance tests and of the hypothetico-deductive approach do not detract from the contribution to conceptual rigor due to the use of a test of significance and of the hypothetico-deductive nature of theory corroboration experimentation.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 337-360 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354391013004
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
H. J. Stam
Ten Years after, Decade to Come: The Contributions of Theory to Psychology
Theory Psychology, February 1, 2000; 10(1): 5 - 21.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
R. Falk and C. W. Greenbaum
Significance Tests Die Hard: The Amazing Persistence of a Probabilistic Misconception
Theory Psychology, February 1, 1995; 5(1): 75 - 98.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
T. Anthony and B. Mullen'
Conceptual Rigor Mortis: Or, Why People are Supporting Pornography when they Don't Send Money to Televangelists
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 361 - 367.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
F. J. Bernieri
Rigor is Rigor: But Rigor is not Necessarily Science
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 369 - 373.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
W. W. Rozeboom
Conceptual Rigor: Where is it?
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 383 - 388.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
S. L. Chow
Rigor and Logic: A Response to Comments on `Conceptual Rigor'
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 389 - 400.
[Abstract]