Show simple item record

dc.contributor.creatorMcGann, Marek
dc.contributor.creatorSpeelman, Craig P.
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-08T12:00:24Z
dc.date.available2018-10-08T12:00:24Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationSpeelman, C. P., & McGann, M. (2013). How mean is the mean? Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 4, 451. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00451en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10395/2229
dc.descriptionHow mean is the mean?en_US
dc.description.abstractIn this paper we voice concerns about the uncritical manner in which the mean is often used as a summary statistic in psychological research. We identify a number of implicit assumptions underlying the use of the mean and argue that the fragility of these assumptions should be more carefully considered. We examine some of the ways in which the potential violation of these assumptions can lead us into significant theoretical and methodological error. Illustrations of alternative models of research already extant within Psychology are used to explore methods of research less mean-dependent and suggest that a critical assessment of the assumptions underlying its use in research play a more explicit role in the process of study design and review.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherFrontiersen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries4;451
dc.rights.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3719041/pdf/fpsyg-04-00451.pdfen_US
dc.subjectMeanen_US
dc.subjectAverageen_US
dc.subjectVariabilityen_US
dc.subjectNoiseen_US
dc.subjectDistributional analysesen_US
dc.subjectCognitionen_US
dc.titleHow mean is the mean?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.type.supercollectionall_mic_researchen_US
dc.type.supercollectionmic_published_revieweden_US
dc.description.versionYesen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00451


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record