Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] A Standardization of the Standard Progressive Matrices in Egypt

#11
There are only two (minor) changes on the new version.

In version 1, the result section was :

Quote: The results are shown in Table 1. This gives the scores on the Standard Progressive Matrices for each age from 6.0 to 20 plus years, the British percentiles of these scores and their British IQ equivalents. The British percentiles for the 6.0 to 15.0 years olds ate taken from the 1979 British standardization sample given by Raven (1981). The British percentiles for the 18.0 to 20 plus year olds are taken from the 1992 British standardization sample given by Raven (1998). There are no British norms for 16 and 17 years olds.

In version 2, it becomes :

Quote: The results are shown in Table 1. This gives the scores on the Standard Progressive Matrices for each age from 6.0 to 20 plus years, the British percentiles of these scores and their British IQ equivalents. The British percentiles for the 6.0 to 15.0 years olds (N = 4733) are taken from the 1979 British standardization sample given by Raven (1981). The British percentiles for the 18.0 to 20 plus year olds (N = 1844) are taken from the 1992 British standardization sample given by Raven (1998). There are no British norms for 16 and 17 years olds.

For the discussion section, in version 1 we have :

Quote:The present study gives two significantly higher IQ of 88.1 and 90.4. We e now have five studies of the Egyptian IQ of which the median is 83. This is regarded as the best estimate of the IQ in Egypt currently available. This estimate is closely similar to the IQ of 84 for Tunisia and 85 for the IQ in Libya given by Meisenberg & Lynn (2011) and Lynn & Vanhanen (2012).

And in version 2 :

Quote:The present study gives two significantly higher IQ of 88.1 and 90.4. We now have five studies of the Egyptian IQ of which the median is 83. This is regarded as the best estimate of the IQ in Egypt currently available. This estimate is closely similar to the IQ of 84 for Tunisia and 85 for the IQ in Libya given by Meisenberg & Lynn (2011) and Lynn & Vanhanen (2012).

That does not address the question raised by Frost, I think.
 Reply
#12
As they write "We are not able to answer the reviewer's other points because the information is not given in the report." This submission is merely an English summary of the published Arabic paper. Maybe we should add a new category of publication for this? "Summary of non-English source"?
 Reply
#13
Thanks for notifying this, I haven't read the mail you have quoted in its entirety. However, if they said in the paper that this information is not available, that would be ok, no ? I mean, if they recognize this in the mail, why not say it explicitly in the paper ?

Emil Wrote:Maybe we should add a new category of publication for this? "Summary of non-English source"?


I would be ok either way. Do as you think it's best.
 Reply
#14
(2014-Oct-07, 21:49:31)Emil Wrote: A reply from Richard.

Quote:Dear Emil

We have revised this paper to meet the comments of your reviewer and attach the revision

A Standardization of the Standard Progressive Matrices in Egypt

In the revision we have added "The test was administered in Arabic, the first language of the participants,"

We are not able to answer the reviewer's other points because the information is not given in the report.

Best regards

Richard

" All these results are based on quite small samples. We report here the results of another study of intelligence in Egypt based on a much larger sample. "
The authors use the median to estimate IQ. I wonder if a weighted average would be better?
 Reply
#15
I have moved the submission here. Authors should edit this version to speed up the review process. I have also tidied up the formatting.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eS6K...O1HVo/edit
 Reply
#16
Before I can approve, the authors must supply a scan of the original Arabic, so that people who can read that language have the option of verifying the data.
 Reply
#17
I approve publication of the most recent version (posted by Emil on 11/6/2012); I noticed no flaws with it.
 Reply
#18
I have two concerns:

1. It seems impossible to verify the content of the original study (Saleh, 1988) or even its existence. The journal exists (it's issued by the Faculty of Education at Minia University), but no abstract of the original study seems to be available anywhere. Nor can I find any references to it. I don't want to be a doubting Thomas, but like Emil I feel that a scan of the original study should be included with the new paper.

2. Is it legitimate to republish a study in another language without the original author's permission? This is more than just a case of citing a previous study.
 Reply
#19
@ Peter Frost :

I prefer if they respond here directly, but I emailed the authors. I will let you know if there's something new.
 Reply
#20
It is not technically a republishing, nor is it a translation. It is an English-language summary. It serves a scientific purpose IMO.
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)