Abstract
<h3>To the Editor:—</h3> Dr. Johnson's letter seems to us to illustrate that which sometimes occurs when an individual adept in statistical methods peruses a research publication. Namely, that in his preoccupation with the numerals of a paper, he overlooks or misinterprets the verbal and creative content. Thus, Dr. Johnson erroneously concluding that the behavior pattern of six of our 19 type A subjects was known to the examiner, eliminates these six and employs the remaining 13 for his statistical scrutiny. However, had he read the paper carefully he would have discovered that the behavior pattern of not six but 13 of the 19 type A subjects was known to us. As a result of this, even his meticulous estimation of the confidence limits of our assessment makes this initial error of his a more glaring one. It is difficult for us also to understand why Dr. Johnson seemingly overlooked the
Published Version
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 call