This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Baumberger, J. P. Articles by Bangert, A. W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Baumberger, J. P. Articles by Bangert, A. W. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Health Statistics Learning Disorders Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Research Designs and Statistical Techniques Used in the Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1989--1993

Julie P. Baumberger is an assistant professor of counselor education at South Dakota State University. She is certified in South Dakota as a school counselor and specialist in the assessment of intellectual functioning. Her research interests include information-processing theory, music cognition, and cognitive intervention strategies for students with learning disabilities.

Arthur W. Bangert

Arthur W. Bangert received his doctorate at the University of South Dakota in 1995. He is an assistant professor in the Department of Counseling and Psychology in Education at the University of South Dakota, and his research interests include performance assessment and generalizability theory. Address: Julie Baumberger, 46468 246th St., Colton, SD 57018.

One hundred seventy-four research articles published in the Journal of Learning Disabilities from 1989 through 1993 were analyzed and coded by the type of research design and statistical technique used. Eighty percent of the research designs employed were identified as nonintervention methods. Fifty-five percent of all statistical techniques in the research articles reviewed were coded as primary, 32% were found to be intermediate, and the remaining 14% were considered advanced. The most frequently reported designs and analyses were those that are typically taught in most introductory and intermediate courses in research methods and statistics. Thus, the study indicates that readers would need at least a strong conceptual understanding of basic and intermediate statistical procedures to interpret research reported in the Journal of Learning Disabilities.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 29, No. 3, 313-316 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/002221949602900310


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?