Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLaws, K.R.
dc.date.accessioned2007-10-09T16:00:25Z
dc.date.available2007-10-09T16:00:25Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.citationLaws , K R 2005 , ' Categories, Controls and Ceilings ' , Cortex , vol. 41 , no. 6 , pp. 869-872 .
dc.identifier.issn0010-9452
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 193547
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 44375318-869e-4e8c-825f-5ed20228a9ff
dc.identifier.otherdspace: 2299/872
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 28444444832
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/872
dc.descriptionOriginal article can be found at: http://www.cortex-online.org/ Copyright Masson S.p.A.
dc.description.abstractIn the target paper, I outlined several methodological issues associated with attempts to document category specific deficits; and a potential solution based around certain minimal criteria. The main argument being that an accurate interpretation of patient performance requires a comparison with a normal control group and that the group performs below ceiling. Neither of these requirements is new or one would imagine, especially contentious. It is therefore surprising that a review of the category specific literature reveals no single study that meets these criteria (Laws, in this issue). Moreover, this has to be viewed in the context that the commonly used analyses (within-patient χ2 and betweensubject comparisons with controls at ceiling) produce false positive, false negative and even paradoxical deficits. [opening paragraph]en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofCortex
dc.rightsOpen
dc.subjectPsychology
dc.titleCategories, Controls and Ceilingsen
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Psychology
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dcterms.dateAccepted2005
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.rights.accesstypeOpen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record