title: Testing the Storm et al. (2010) meta-analysis using Bayesian and frequentist approaches: reply to Rouder et al. (2013).
abstract: Rouder, Morey, and Province (2013) stated that (a) the evidence-based case for psi in Storm, Tressoldi, and Di Risio's (2010) meta-analysis is supported only by a number of studies that used manual randomization, and (b) when these studies are excluded so that only investigations using automatic randomization are evaluated (and some additional studies previously omitted by Storm et al., 2010, are included), the evidence for psi is "unpersuasive." Rouder et al. used a Bayesian approach, and we adopted the same methodology, finding that our case is upheld. Because of recent updates and corrections, we reassessed the free-response databases of Storm et al. using a frequentist approach. We discuss and critique the assumptions and findings of Rouder et al.
authors.affiliation: School of Psychology, University of Adelaide.
authors.forename: Lance
authors.identifier: 0000-0002-6228-6150
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Storm
authors.affiliation: Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Universita di Padova.
authors.forename: Patrizio E
authors.identifier: 0000-0002-6404-0058
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Tressoldi
authors.affiliation: Department of Statistics, University of California.
authors.forename: Jessica
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Utts
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010268:Parapsychology / Q000379:methods*