(1) good reliability and (2) predictive power over something interesting? (@Meaningness?)
-
-
inter-rater reliability leaves something to be desired, I believe, but it's not atrocious
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I recently dug into the detailed research report and it sucks. His own research group’s anyway. There’s been follow-up by other groups, who
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @garybasin and
did get get similar results, but overall the quality of science is disappointing. I’m enthusiastic about it as a heuristic framework, but >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @garybasin and
it has to be considered tentative/preliminary/speculative as science. The Kohlberg stuff looks pretty solid however, and is closely related
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think the studies quoted in Guide to the Subject Object Interview conclude good inter-rater and test-retest reliability. Will grab tmro!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes… the numbers look quite good … but the general sloppiness of the Guide overall seriously eroded my confidence. Fwiw!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yeah, typesetting among worst I've seen :-/ My guess is the book was created for an academic context, never really intended to be published.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right; the qualitative sloppiness of the book undermines the quantitatively good results. Left me unwilling to trust the authors’ science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Malcolm_Ocean and
That said, I think the framework is probably right despite doubt about experimental methodology. By abduction: it seems to explain so much.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
And the Guide is very worth reading for the detailed discussion of emotional and relational aspects if the 4 to 5 transition, especially
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.