Yep. But his dissertation was classic psychometrics, and he worked primarily with DeSarbo. Some other work is Bayesian. He knows quant as well as most modelers, if you look at his work or even talk to him.
SB is not quant. By any standards. Adding some math to behavioral questions does not make you quant.
He even has some analytical work! SB is a great guy!
Yep. But his dissertation was classic psychometrics, and he worked primarily with DeSarbo. Some other work is Bayesian. He knows quant as well as most modelers, if you look at his work or even talk to him.
SB is not quant. By any standards. Adding some math to behavioral questions does not make you quant.
So he could use his so-called quant skills to publish JCR or psychological science. Good for him. But he is not considered quant.
Yep. But his dissertation was classic psychometrics, and he worked primarily with DeSarbo. Some other work is Bayesian. He knows quant as well as most modelers, if you look at his work or even talk to him.
SB is not quant. By any standards. Adding some math to behavioral questions does not make you quant.
At least he is better than BU behavior people (and quant, maybe).
So he could use his so-called quant skills to publish JCR or psychological science. Good for him. But he is not considered quant.
Yep. But his dissertation was classic psychometrics, and he worked primarily with DeSarbo. Some other work is Bayesian. He knows quant as well as most modelers, if you look at his work or even talk to him.
SB is not quant. By any standards. Adding some math to behavioral questions does not make you quant.