@article{ref1,
title="Statistics for statistics?--Thoughts about psychological tools",
journal="Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, medizinische Psychologie",
year="2007",
author="Berger, Uwe and Stöbel-Richter, Yve",
volume="57",
number="12",
pages="469-474",
abstract="Statistical methods take a prominent place among psychologists' educational programs. Being known as difficult to understand and heavy to learn, students fear of these contents. Those, who do not aspire after a research carrier at the university, will forget the drilled contents fast. Furthermore, because it does not apply for the work with patients and other target groups at a first glance, the methodological education as a whole was often questioned. For many psychological practitioners the statistical education makes only sense by enforcing respect against other professions, namely physicians. For the own business, statistics is rarely taken seriously as a professional tool. The reason seems to be clear: Statistics treats numbers, while psychotherapy treats subjects. So, does statistics ends in itself? With this article, we try to answer the question, if and how statistical methods were represented within the psychotherapeutical and psychological research. Therefore, we analyzed 46 Originals of a complete volume of the journal Psychotherapy, Psychosomatics, Psychological Medicine (PPmP). RESULT: Within the volume, 28 different analyse methods were applied, from which 89 per cent were directly based upon statistics. To be able to write and critically read Originals as a backbone of research, presumes a high degree of statistical education. To ignore statistics means to ignore research and at least to reveal the own professional work to arbitrariness.<p /><p>Language: de</p>",
language="de",
issn="0937-2032",
doi="10.1055/s-2007-986235",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-986235"
}