Misunderstood Statistical Assumptions Undermine Criticism of the National Early Literacy Panel’s Report

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9735103
AutoresChristopher Schatschneider (0000-0002-1700-7685, Florida State University, autor correspondente), Christopher J Lonigan (0000-0001-8173-0723)
Ano2010
Volume39
Fascículo4
Páginas347-351
Data de publicação2010-05-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoEducational Researcher (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X
EditoraAmerican Educational Research Association (AERA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.3102/0013189x10369931
PMID22294803
PMCIDPMC3268038
OpenAlexW2107018345
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas7
Referências citadas13

Many of the methodological criticisms of the National Early Literacy Panel (NELP) report presented in this special issue of Educational Researcher are not specific to the NELP report but are in fact broad criticisms of much of the quantitative research on early literacy. This rejoinder demonstrates that these criticisms are off target and are based on a misunderstanding of the basic statistical assumptions employed in early literacy research. These assumptions are explained in this rejoinder, with the conclusion that quantitative research on early literacy rests on a strong statistical foundation

Criticism · Economics · Educational research · Epistemology · Foundation (evidence · Literacy · Mathematics education · Pedagogy · Political science · Positive economics · Social science · Sociology · Statistical analysis · Statistics · Early Childhood Education and Development · Education Systems and Policy · Law · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development