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
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 Anthony, T.
Right arrow Articles by Mullen', B.
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?

Other

Conceptual Rigor Mortis

Or, Why People are Supporting Pornography when they Don't Send Money to Televangelists

Tara Anthony

Syracuse University

Brian Mullen'

Syracuse University

In his paper entitled `Conceptual rigor versus practical impact', Chow (1991) argued against Rosnow and Rosenthal's (1989) recent call for caution and sophistication in the evaluation of the results of empirical studies. Chow also holds forth upon the purported failings of meta-analysis as a form of integrating research findings that is antithetical to the purpose of reviewing research. This commentary considers the paucity of evidence in support of Chow's assertions and illuminates the syllogistic fallacies used to disguise the deficiencies rife in Chow's paper. This commentary also provides correct information regarding fundamental issues in meta-analysis, the relationships between effect size, sample size and significance level, and the putative distinction between the concern for practical impact and Chow's notion of `conceptual rigor'.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 361-367 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354391013005
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
S. L. Chow
Rigor and Logic: A Response to Comments on `Conceptual Rigor'
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 389 - 400.
[Abstract]