Responds to Biskin's comments (this issue) on the significance test controversy. Highlights areas of agreement (importance of replication evidence, importance of effect sizes) and disagreement (influence of sample size, evaluation of populations vs. samples, significance of Carver's article). Includes further recommendations for reporting research…

Sternberg (1981) presented correlations based on independent samples of about 25 cases each with a statistical comparison in a population parameter of zero and interpreted his results as if with appropriate tests. He needed to use a nonzero population parameter and compare for the difference between the z transformations. (Author/CM)

Sternberg's reply to paper Humphrey criticizes (see TM 507 045) includes: (1) invited position paper and detailed statistical testing would have been inappropriate; (2) Humphrey commits some of "misdeeds" of which he accuses Sternberg; (3) number of cases in the three nonentrenchment experiments are more than adequate for drawing conclusions; and…

Makes the case that science is best served when researchers focus on the size of effects and their practical significance. Advocates the use of confidence intervals for deciding whether chance or sampling variability is an unlikely explanation for an observed effect. Calls for more emphasis on effect sizes in the next edition of the American…

From a priori and post hoc data collection perspectives, this paper describes the interrelations among (1) power, alpha, effect size, and sample size for hypothesis testing; and (2) precision, confidence, and sample size for interval estimation. Implications for special education researchers working with convenient samples of fixed size are…