Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: a reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009)

Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) reported that estimates of the difference limen (DL) from a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task are higher than those obtained from a reminder task. This article reanalyzes their data in order to correct an error in their estimates of the DL from 2AFC data. We also extend the psychometric functions fitted to data from both tasks to incorporate an extra parameter that has been shown to allow obtaining accurate estimates of the DL that are unaffected by lapses. Contrary to Lapid et al.'s conclusion, our reanalysis shows that DLs estimated with the 2AFC task are only minimally (and not always significantly) larger than those estimated with the reminder task. We also show that their data are contaminated by response bias, and that the small remaining difference between DLs estimated with 2AFC and reminder tasks can be reasonably attributed to the differential effects that response bias has in either task as they were defined in Lapid et al.'s experiments. Finally, we discuss a novel approach presented by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) for fitting psychometric functions to 2AFC discrimination data.

Correction to “Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: A reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009)”

We recently published an article (García-Pérez & Alcalá- Quintana, 2010) reanalyzing data presented by Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and discussing a theoretical argument developed by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009). The purpose of this note is to correct an error in our study that has some theoretical importance, although it does not affect the conclusion that was raised. The error lies in that asymptote parameters reflecting lapses or finger errors should not enter the constraint relating the psychometric functions that describe performance when the comparison stimulus in a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination task is presented in the first or second interval.

Formats des groupes et types de discussion dans la recherche sociale qualitative

La dénomination « entretiens de groupe » renvoie à une pluralité de dispositifs de groupes de recherche. Compte tenu de la confusion qui est souvent malheureusement faite entre certains de ces dispositifs, cet article cherche à souligner l’intérêt que représente pour la recherche sociale qualitative le fait de mieux nuancer les différences entre l’entretien simultané, le focus group et le groupe de discussion, concrètement. C’est pourquoi cet article a pour objectif la prise en considération, tout à la fois, de sa configuration socio-historique (en ce qui concerne les entretiens simultanés pionniers ou focused interviews, par exemple), et de la forme distincte de la discussion que chacun met en scène (soit le débat soit la conversation), ainsi que de leurs dynamiques (semi-directive et progressive, pour le focus group, et non directive et processuelle, pour le groupe de discussion). Plaidant pour la possibilité d’une complémentarité des dispositifs plutôt que pour leur chevauchement.