Theory selection and evaluation in case series research.
Saved in:
| Title: | Theory selection and evaluation in case series research. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Goldrick, Matthew (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Cognitive Neuropsychology. Oct2011, Vol. 28 Issue 7, p451-465. 15p. 1 Diagram, 1 Chart, 2 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Individual differences, Schwartz, M. F., Selection theorems, Empirical research, Simulation methods & models, Error analysis in mathematics |
| Abstract: | Using empirical data to develop theories requires not only evaluating how well a theory accounts for data; it requires using the data to select the best theory from among a set of alternatives. Current case series research is examined in light of these two issues. Theory selection requires that theories make contrasting predictions. In the first section of this commentary, I present novel simulation results showing that existing theories of language production do not make contrasting predictions for the overall distribution of responses over a set of responses categories (e.g., correct response, semantic error, etc.; Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran, & Gagnon, 1997). Given such results, in order to be theoretically productive case series research must focus on those aspects of data that serve to contrast theoretical alternatives. The second section considers evaluation of claims regarding individual differences. Such claims are typically underconstrained. Two approaches to addressing this issue are discussed. I argue that case series research should provide independent evidence for hypothesized individual differences. Second, parametric approaches might provide a means of constraining theories of individual differences. The plausibility of this approach is examined through novel analyses of empirical distributions of individual differences in impairments to lexical access (Schwartz, Dell, Martin, Gahl, & Sobel, 2006). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Cognitive Neuropsychology is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Using empirical data to develop theories requires not only evaluating how well a theory accounts for data; it requires using the data to select the best theory from among a set of alternatives. Current case series research is examined in light of these two issues. Theory selection requires that theories make contrasting predictions. In the first section of this commentary, I present novel simulation results showing that existing theories of language production do not make contrasting predictions for the overall distribution of responses over a set of responses categories (e.g., correct response, semantic error, etc.; Dell, Schwartz, Martin, Saffran, & Gagnon, 1997). Given such results, in order to be theoretically productive case series research must focus on those aspects of data that serve to contrast theoretical alternatives. The second section considers evaluation of claims regarding individual differences. Such claims are typically underconstrained. Two approaches to addressing this issue are discussed. I argue that case series research should provide independent evidence for hypothesized individual differences. Second, parametric approaches might provide a means of constraining theories of individual differences. The plausibility of this approach is examined through novel analyses of empirical distributions of individual differences in impairments to lexical access (Schwartz, Dell, Martin, Gahl, & Sobel, 2006). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02643294 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/02643294.2012.675319 |
