Sound findings and appropriate statistics: Response to Snowling and Hulme

Roderick I. Nicolson*, David Reynolds

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (journal)peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In summary, Snowling and Hulme were entitled to claim that, despite the solid effect sizes, the case for the effectiveness of the DDAT treatment was 'not proven' owing to the imbalance in initial reading scores. The analyses of covariance fully resolve this issue, confirming that the significant differences remain even when the effects of any initial differences are removed. The treatment did therefore lead to significant effects, and our conclusions were indeed sound. Copyright

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)134-135
Number of pages2
JournalDyslexia
Volume9
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2003

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Sound findings and appropriate statistics: Response to Snowling and Hulme'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this