Abstract
We argue a divergent perspective from that taken by Barrett, Caldwell, and Alexander (1985) in a critical reanalysis of the evidence for dynamic criteria. Those authors distinguished three definitions of the dynamic criterion phenomenon and concluded, on the basis of secondary analyses of several sets of published data, that dynamic criteria do not exist. Moreover, they concluded that most of the temporal changes in criteria reported in those data sets could be explained by methodological artifacts. In several cases these artifacts were listed in summary form, without a complete consideration of the implications of invoking these artifacts as post hoc explanations. The purpose of this comment is to clarify the debate on dynamic criteria by critiquing the Barrett et al. study. We suggest that a fruitful solution to the problem may lie in trying to understand criteria per se rather than searching for artifacts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
