{"title":"对Galambos、Krahn、Johnson和Lachman的“另一次超越幸福横截面U形的尝试：回应”（2021）","authors":"David Rauner","doi":"10.33140/ijp.08.01.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a reply to GKJL2’s response to the Blanchflower and Graham – henceforth BG -response to Galambos et al original paper on this topic (GKJL1) [1, 2]. As such, this paper is a point-by-point response to GKJL2 (2021). This review aims to highlight errors in most of the points raised, as well as a very large difference in views on what is appropriate statistical analysis and inference. There is absolutely nothing here to challenge BG’s argument that the evidence for a U-shape is ‘overwhelming’.","PeriodicalId":78321,"journal":{"name":"International journal of psychiatry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Response To ‘Another Attempt To Move Beyond The Cross-Sectional U Shape Of Happiness: A Reply’ By Galambos, Krahn, Johnson And Lachman (2021)\",\"authors\":\"David Rauner\",\"doi\":\"10.33140/ijp.08.01.04\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is a reply to GKJL2’s response to the Blanchflower and Graham – henceforth BG -response to Galambos et al original paper on this topic (GKJL1) [1, 2]. As such, this paper is a point-by-point response to GKJL2 (2021). This review aims to highlight errors in most of the points raised, as well as a very large difference in views on what is appropriate statistical analysis and inference. There is absolutely nothing here to challenge BG’s argument that the evidence for a U-shape is ‘overwhelming’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":78321,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of psychiatry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33140/ijp.08.01.04\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33140/ijp.08.01.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Response To ‘Another Attempt To Move Beyond The Cross-Sectional U Shape Of Happiness: A Reply’ By Galambos, Krahn, Johnson And Lachman (2021)
This is a reply to GKJL2’s response to the Blanchflower and Graham – henceforth BG -response to Galambos et al original paper on this topic (GKJL1) [1, 2]. As such, this paper is a point-by-point response to GKJL2 (2021). This review aims to highlight errors in most of the points raised, as well as a very large difference in views on what is appropriate statistical analysis and inference. There is absolutely nothing here to challenge BG’s argument that the evidence for a U-shape is ‘overwhelming’.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
