This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bernieri, F. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Rigor is Rigor

But Rigor is not Necessarily Science

Oregon State University

Chow (1991) has defined the experimental logic and methodology described by Rosnow and Rosenthal (1989) as being incompatible with his notion of `conceptual rigor' and even antithetical to the requirements of internal and external validity. The purpose of this response is to suggest: (a) that the two approaches in question are not, in their entirety, mutually exclusive and differ only at one precise step within the theory-corroboration process; and (b) that to rely exclusively on probability of outcome as the sole decision criteria in theory corroboration without being cognizant of the theoretically irrelevant factors (e.g. sample size of study) which affect them seems, to this author, antithetical to science.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 369-373 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354391013006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

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