How widely is blind assessment used in scientific research?

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 88-91

  Sheldrake, Rupert ^a  

^a Institute of Noetic Sciences   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE;

DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 0033125362     PISSN: 10786791     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Mussachia M. Objectivity and repeatability in science. Skeptical Inquirer. 1995;19(6):33-35,56.
2. Rosenthal R. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York. NY: John Wiley: 1976.
3. Roberts AH, Kewman DG, Mercier L, Hovell H. The power of nonspecific effects in healing: implications for psychosocial and biological treatment. Clin Psychol Rev. 1993;13:375.
4. White L, Tursky B, Schwartz G, eds. Placebo: Theory, Research and Mechanisms. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1985.
5. Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment in medicine. Bull Hist Med. 1998;72:389-433.
6. Lukoff D, Edwards D, Miller M. The case study as a scientific method for researching alternative therapies. Altern Ther Health Med. 1998;4(2):44-52.
7. Sheldrake R. Seven Experiments That Could Change the World. London, England: Fourth Estate; 1994.
8. Sheldrake R. Experimenter effects in scientific research: how widely are they neglected? J Sci Exploration. 1998;12(1):73-78.
9. Sheldrake R. Could experimenter effects occur in the physical and biological sciences? Skeptical Inquirer. 1998;22(3):57-58.