In Reply to Attanasio In response to Joseph Attanasio’s criticisms of my paper (Craig, 1990), I offer the following thoughts. Some of Attanasio’s comments are constructive and legitimate. For instance, the subjects were not randomly selected. The failure to randomly select may well challenge the assumptions of inferential statistics. Also, as I stated in ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   October 01, 1991
In Reply to Attanasio
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ashley Craig
    University of Technology New South Wales, Australia
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Fluency Disorders / Speech / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   October 01, 1991
In Reply to Attanasio
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1991, Vol. 34, 1080-1081. doi:10.1044/jshr.3405.1080
History: Received November 2, 1990 , Accepted January 8, 1991
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1991, Vol. 34, 1080-1081. doi:10.1044/jshr.3405.1080
History: Received November 2, 1990; Accepted January 8, 1991
In response to Joseph Attanasio’s criticisms of my paper (Craig, 1990), I offer the following thoughts. Some of Attanasio’s comments are constructive and legitimate. For instance, the subjects were not randomly selected. The failure to randomly select may well challenge the assumptions of inferential statistics. Also, as I stated in the paper, I made a late decision to assess posttreatment anxiety. This resulted in no post-anxiety scores for many of the stutterers and all of the matched controls. This prevented a multivariate analysis of the data that would have controlled alpha (Type I error rate). However, in the paper I did request that the results be cautiously interpreted because of these problems.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access