In response to Bilodeau's critique of a previous experiment three points are made: (1) relatively small ns and multiple Es are within the logic of scientific inference, (2) when you replicate you replicate, (3) there is a misunderstanding of the role of a research note in the scientific literature. The Dyal experiment then is a positive replication of Greenspoon and Foreman and thus contrasts with Bilodeau and Ryan's failure to replicate.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BilodeauE. A.Inadequate resources, experimental design, and review of the informative feedback literature. Percept. mot. Skills.1964, 19, 121–122.
2.
BilodeauE. A., & BilodeauI. McD.Variation of temporal intervals among critical events in five studies of knowledge of results. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 55, 603–612.
BilodeauE. A., & RyanF. J.A test for interaction of delay of knowledge of results and two types of interpolated activity. J. exp. Psychol., 1960, 59, 414–419.
5.
DyalJ. A.Brightness and spatial discrimination based on perceived incentive magnitude. J. comp. physiol. Psychol., 1960, 53, 346–350.
6.
DyalJ. A.Effects of delay of knowledge of results in a line drawing task. Percept. mot. Skills, 1964, 19, 433–434.
7.
DyalJ. A., & ArringtonG.Effects of KR and subject-response bias on extinction of a simple motor skill. Amer. Psychologist, 1964, 19, 544. (Abstract)
8.
DyalJ. A.WilsonW. J., & BerryK. K.Acquisition and extinction of a simple motor skill as a function of delay of KR. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1965, in press.
9.
GreenspoonJ., & ForemanS.Effect of delay of knowledge of results on learning a motor task. J. exp. Psychol., 1956, 51, 226–228.
