This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Raquel E. Gur, MD, PhD; Brett E. Skolnick, PhD; Ruben C. Gur, PhD
Department of Psychiatry University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1985;42(4):421-422.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

In a multivariate study, particularly one that explores new methods for understanding psychopathology, the investigator treads on a tightrope between two pitfalls. On the one hand is the temptation to draw as many conclusions as possible from every study, even when the data are from a limited sample. The risk, of course, is capitalizing on chance. On the other hand, it may be dangerous to confine data analysis to the testing of specific hypotheses, as one may lose sight of effects that have not been hypothesized.

In our first study of a series designed to examine systematically the relationship between psychopathology and regional brain function,¹ we followed conservative statistical procedures to minimize the risk of the first pitfall. The hypothesis that has motivated the study was of left hemispheric dysfunction and overactivation in schizophrenia.² We interpreted the predicted diagnosis X task X hemisphere interaction as supporting the hypothesis. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?