This (method) is (not) fine

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/Letter to the editorScientificpeer-review

71 Downloads (Pure)


SummaryIn their response to my criticism of their recent article in Journal of Biosocial Science (te Nijenhuis et al., 2017), te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek (2018) raise four points none of which concerns my main point that the method of correlated vectors (MCV) applied to item-level data represents a flawed method. Here, I discuss te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek's four points. First, I argue that my previous application of MCV to item-level data showed that the method can yield nonsensical results. Second, I note that meta-analytic corrections for sampling error, imperfect measures, restriction of range and unreliability of the vectors are futile and cannot help fix the method. Third, I note that even with perfect data, the method can yield negative correlations. Fourth, I highlight the irrelevance of te Nijenhuis and van den Hoek (2018)'s point that my comment had not been published in a peerreviewed journal by referring to my articles in 2009 and 2017 on MCV in peer-reviewed journals.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)872-874
JournalJournal of Biosocial Science
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - 2018


Dive into the research topics of 'This (method) is (not) fine'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this