I did skim it and it adresses all the relevant aspects. It is indeed the first hit that came up but it does show a very rigorous and scientific treatment of the topic. It is also balanced in so far as it separated out statistical measures from other valuations (to a avoid calling it “bayesian priors” which he does’t claim):
Apart from reliability of change or group differences (e.g., statistical
significance) and the magnitude of experimental effects (e.g., effect size or correlation), the importance of the
change and the impact on client functioning add critical dimensions. Treatments that produce reliable effects
may be quite different in their impact on client functioning, and clinical significance brings this issue to light.
It tells me that Kazdin knows quite well “how to perform reproducible measurements”, not how these measurements are carried out in particular. It seems that there are more papers out there that actually do this.
I did skim it and it adresses all the relevant aspects. It is indeed the first hit that came up but it does show a very rigorous and scientific treatment of the topic. It is also balanced in so far as it separated out statistical measures from other valuations (to a avoid calling it “bayesian priors” which he does’t claim):
So, do show where does this particular paper tell you how to, in your words, “perform reproducible measurements”.
Your quote talks about interpretation of measurements—it says nothing about how to make sure the measurement itself is reliable and reproducible.
It tells me that Kazdin knows quite well “how to perform reproducible measurements”, not how these measurements are carried out in particular. It seems that there are more papers out there that actually do this.