Abstract
Basso, Burgio, Paulin, and Prandoni (2000) claimed evidence for recovery from ideomotor apraxia within the first year post-cerebrovascular accident. However, concerns about the excessive use of paired t tests and incongruous experimental designs challenge the reported findings. The ideomotor apraxia recovery data should be analysed with a completely within-subjects design one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Further, the locus of lesion by clinical examination time data should be analysed in a two-way mixed design ANOVA with repeated measures on the three levels of examination time. In addition, circularity assumptions (i.e., composition of the covariance matrices) should be addressed for the repeated measures in the recommended analyses. In a tutorial approach, using the proper experimental designs and statistics, the ideomotor apraxia data were reanalysed. The one-way results support the recovery improvements between the first and second examinations. However, conflict with the original findings was found in the two-way mixed design results. Thus, the overall conclusions should be amended, especially given that the Locus of Lesion - Clinical Examination Time interaction failed to reach significance.
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.
