Cargando…

Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed

Rouder and Haaf (2021) propose that studying qualitative individual differences would be a useful tool for researchers. I agree with their central message. I use this commentary to highlight examples from the literature where similar questions have been asked, and how researchers have addressed them...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Hedge, Craig
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Ubiquity Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8396121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514319
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.169
_version_ 1783744303273607168
author Hedge, Craig
author_facet Hedge, Craig
author_sort Hedge, Craig
collection PubMed
description Rouder and Haaf (2021) propose that studying qualitative individual differences would be a useful tool for researchers. I agree with their central message. I use this commentary to highlight examples from the literature where similar questions have been asked, and how researchers have addressed them with existing tools. I also observe that while the hierarchical Bayesian framework is a useful tool for studying individual differences, it does not relieve us of the requirement to evaluate the forms of reliability that are critical to our research questions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8396121
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Ubiquity Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83961212021-09-09 Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed Hedge, Craig J Cogn Commentary Rouder and Haaf (2021) propose that studying qualitative individual differences would be a useful tool for researchers. I agree with their central message. I use this commentary to highlight examples from the literature where similar questions have been asked, and how researchers have addressed them with existing tools. I also observe that while the hierarchical Bayesian framework is a useful tool for studying individual differences, it does not relieve us of the requirement to evaluate the forms of reliability that are critical to our research questions. Ubiquity Press 2021-08-27 /pmc/articles/PMC8396121/ /pubmed/34514319 http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.169 Text en Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Commentary
Hedge, Craig
Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title_full Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title_fullStr Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title_full_unstemmed Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title_short Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed
title_sort qualitative individual differences are useful, but reliability should be assessed and not assumed
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8396121/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34514319
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.169
work_keys_str_mv AT hedgecraig qualitativeindividualdifferencesareusefulbutreliabilityshouldbeassessedandnotassumed