All models are wrong, but some are useful: A comment on Ogden (2016)

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)265-268
Number of pages4
JournalHealth Psychology Review
Volume10
Issue number3
Early online date23 May 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2016

Keywords

  • METAANALYSIS
  • INTENTIONS

Cite this

@article{32adc6a53cec49b3a44aa5c03930ee4c,
title = "All models are wrong, but some are useful: A comment on Ogden (2016)",
keywords = "METAANALYSIS, INTENTIONS",
author = "Peters, {Gjalt-Jorn Ygram} and Gerjo Kok",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1080/17437199.2016.1190658",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "265--268",
journal = "Health Psychology Review",
issn = "1743-7199",
publisher = "Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group",
number = "3",

}

All models are wrong, but some are useful : A comment on Ogden (2016). / Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram; Kok, Gerjo.

In: Health Psychology Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 09.2016, p. 265-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorialAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - All models are wrong, but some are useful

T2 - A comment on Ogden (2016)

AU - Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram

AU - Kok, Gerjo

PY - 2016/9

Y1 - 2016/9

KW - METAANALYSIS

KW - INTENTIONS

U2 - 10.1080/17437199.2016.1190658

DO - 10.1080/17437199.2016.1190658

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 27216695

VL - 10

SP - 265

EP - 268

JO - Health Psychology Review

JF - Health Psychology Review

SN - 1743-7199

IS - 3

ER -