Premium
WHEN IS A FAILURE TO REPLICATE NOT A TYPE II ERROR?
Author(s) -
Vasconcelos Marco,
Urcuioli Peter J.,
LionelloDeNolf Karen M.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of the experimental analysis of behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.75
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1938-3711
pISSN - 0022-5002
DOI - 10.1901/jeab.2007.10-07
Subject(s) - overtraining , replicate , statement (logic) , psychology , computer science , cognitive psychology , artificial intelligence , medicine , linguistics , statistics , mathematics , physical therapy , athletes , philosophy
Zentall and Singer (2007) challenge our conclusion that the work‐ethic effect reported by Clement, Feltus, Kaiser, and Zentall (2000) may have been a Type I error by arguing that (a) the effect has been extensively replicated and (b) the amount of overtraining our pigeons received may not have been sufficient to produce it. We believe that our conclusion is warranted because (a) the original effect has not been replicated despite multiple attempts to do so and (b) the statement that more extended overtraining may be needed itself suggests that the original effect is not reliable.