Linked Life Data

18587635

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/18587635

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2009-5-6
pubmed:abstractText
This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.
pubmed:grant
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
1573-661X
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Electronic
pubmed:volume
33
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
247-57
pubmed:dateRevised
2011-9-26
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2009
pubmed:articleTitle
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA. bradley.mcauliff@csun.edu
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S., Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't