A reply to Zigler and Seitz.
The Zigler and Seitz (1975) critique was carefully examined with respect to the conclusions of the Neman et al. (1975) study. Particular attention was given to the following questions: (a) did experimenter bias or commitment account for the results, (b) were unreliable and invalid psychometric instruments used, (c) were the statistical analyses insufficient or incorrect, (d) did the results reflect no more than the operation of chance, and (e) were the results biased by artifactually inflated profile scores. Experimenter bias and commitment were shown to be insufficient to account for the results; a further review of Buros (1972) showed that there was no need for apprehension about the testing instruments; the statistical analyses were shown to exceed prevailing standards for research reporting; the results were shown to reflect valid findings at the .05 probability level; and the Neman et al. (1975) results for the profile measure were equally significant using either "raw" neurological scores or "scales" neurological age scores. Zigler, Seitz, and I agreed on the needs for (a) using multivariate analyses, where applicable, in studies having more than one dependent variable; (b) defining the population for which sensorimotor training procedures may be appropriately prescribed; and (c) validating the profile measure as a tool to assess neurological disorganization.
D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D002674:Child, Institutionalized; D004495:Education of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008607:Intellectual Disability / Q000378:metabolism; D007360:Intelligence; D008297:Male; D009938:Organizations; D010806:Physical Education and Training; D011594:Psychometrics; D012107:Research Design; D012737:Sex Factors; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D014481:United States