Abstract
In his paper entitled `Conceptual rigor versus practical impact', Chow (1991) argued against Rosnow and Rosenthal's (1989) recent call for caution and sophistication in the evaluation of the results of empirical studies. Chow also holds forth upon the purported failings of meta-analysis as a form of integrating research findings that is antithetical to the purpose of reviewing research. This commentary considers the paucity of evidence in support of Chow's assertions and illuminates the syllogistic fallacies used to disguise the deficiencies rife in Chow's paper. This commentary also provides correct information regarding fundamental issues in meta-analysis, the relationships between effect size, sample size and significance level, and the putative distinction between the concern for practical impact and Chow's notion of `conceptual rigor'.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.