263
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Commentary

How much better? The challenge of interpreting interactions in intervention studies

References

  • Baddeley, A. (1993). A theory of rehabilitation without a model of learning is a vehicle without an engine: A comment on Caramazza and Hillis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 235–244. doi:10.1080/09602019308401438
  • Baron, J., & Treiman, R. (1980). Some problems in the study of differences in cognitive processes. Memory & Cognition, 8, 313–321. doi:10.3758/BF03198270
  • Bogartz, R. S. (1976). On the meaning of statistical interactions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 22, 178–183. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(76)90099-0
  • Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A. (1993). For a theory of remediation of cognitive deficits. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 3, 217–234. doi:10.1080/09602019308401437
  • Cochran, W. G. (1940). The analysis of variance when experimental errors follow the Poisson or binomial laws. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 11, 335–347. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731871
  • Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2014). Analysis of single-case data: Randomisation tests for measures of effect size. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 507–527. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.818564
  • Howard, D., Best, W., & Nickels, L. (2014). Optimising the design of intervention studies: Critiques and ways forward. Aphasiology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.985884
  • Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
  • Krantz, D. H., & Tversky, A. (1971). Conjoint-measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychological Review, 78, 151–169. doi:10.1037/h0030637
  • Loftus, G. R. (1978). On interpretation of interactions. Memory & Cognition, 6, 312–319. doi:10.3758/BF03197461
  • Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. W. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1, 1–27. doi:10.1016/0022-2496(64)90015-X
  • Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Craik, F. I. M. (1998). Presenting & analyzing results in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 24, 83–98. doi:10.1080/036107398244373
  • Salthouse, T. A. (2000). Methodological assumptions in cognitive aging research. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 467–498). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Wagenmakers, E.-J., Krypotos, A.-M., Criss, A. H., & Iverson, G. (2012). On the interpretation of removable interactions: A survey of the field 33 years after Loftus. Memory & Cognition, 40, 145–160. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0158-0

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.