CVLT recognition-recall discrepancies and retrieval deficits. A comment on Wilde et al (1995)

The methodological procedures employed by the authors are inappropriate for their data. Even when the results of the statistical analyses are taken at face value, the interpretation that there is no difference between the Discrepancy and Nondiscrepancy group is unsustainable, and the authors' conclusions that retrieval deficits do not underlie recognition-recall discrepancies is unwarranted. Therefore, the Wilde et al. study can not be taken as an adequate test of this issue. The interpretation of recall-recognition discrepancies as retrieval deficits should continue to be regarded as very plausible. What stands out as a robust result of the Wilde et al. study is the significantly greater heterogeneity of the Nondiscrepancy group as compared with the Discrepancy group, although this may well be a selection artifact, given a similar difference in the grouping variables. Regardless of whether this is the case, it underscores the necessity of greater attention to distributional problems, either by applying more stringent selection criteria or by using nonparametric statistical methods.