Interesting fact we have never succeeded in publishing. This study contains about 100 twin pairs (not enough, but still), and they display the Scarr-Rowe interaction: heritabilities are higher in the pairs randomly assigned to the enhanced environmental conditions.
-
-
-
If you posted the unpublished article, a lot of us would download it.
-
Let me check with my co-authors...
-
100 pairs split into two groups? Nothing's significant there.
-
Exactly, that's why we couldn't publish it. Still interesting though, because it's the only time anyone has even tried to look at it across randomized environments.
-
Please post it on http://psyarxiv.com/ to combat publication bias. Maybe someone else have similar small datasets and eventually we can meta-analyze the joint data.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Behavioral Cog and Psych have such hilarious issues with finding significant values in any given test, and it's especially hilarious to see people touting definitive stats with zero power considering their sample size of sub 100, or homogeneous sample.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
1. Everybody working in the area has heard of it. 2. Nobody registered trials back then so you don't know that a registered trial wouldn't have included testing impacts on the different weight groups so calling it p hacking is a bit strong. 3. And that is why no one talks 1/
-
about much about this. Among the people I know this study is viewed as not informative because the design is flawed and was not an exact replication of Abcidarian. But Abcidarian was extremely intensive and almost certainly could never be exactly replicated at scale. 2/
-
The finding of large numbers of such studies is that they impact IQ during treatment and for some time afterwards. The effects always fade and whether they fade to nothing remains controversial. My meta analysis showed that results on fade out were heterogeneous.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m frustrated by the lack of communication here. Recall the papers and monograph I sent you a while back. Jamaica in Science. RAND report. Heckman’s many papers (yes, some are small sample). Cognitive gains are not the point
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.