For a paper published in 2010 (for example, from the journal Psychological Science), where a key result apparently testing a theory comes from a t-test,  answer the following questions. Try to limit your total words to about 1000, so each answer will need to be very concise, while being informative.

 Section A. Popper (25 marks)

1) Concisely state the theory that the authors present as being put up to test?
2) What pattern of results, if any, would actually falsify the theory?
3) What background knowledge inspired this theory but is not being directly tested?
4) What background knowledge must be assumed in order for the test to be a test of the theory in (1)?
5) How safe is the background knowledge in (4)?

 Section B. Neyman Pearson (25 marks)

6) Have the authors determined what difference (or range of differences) would be expected if the theory were true?
7) If not, do you know any results or other papers that could allow you to state an expected size of difference? Provide an expected difference and state your reasons.
8) Have the authors established their sensitivity to pick up such a difference, through power or confidence intervals? If not, provide a calculation yourself.
9) Was the test of the theory  in (1) severe (in Popper’s sense)?

Section C Lakatos (25 marks)

10) State the hard core of the research programme the authors are working in
11) Does the paper contribute to the research programme in a progressive or degenerating way? State your reasons.

Section D  Bayes (25 marks)

12) What was the mean difference obtained in the study?
13) What was the standard error of this difference?
14) Extending your answer in (7), specify a probability distribution for the difference expected by the theory
15) What is the Bayes factor in favour of the theory over the null hypothesis?
16) What does the Bayes factor tell you that the t-test does not?

Example answer1 (short model answers)

Example answer2 (detailed discussion of issues)