>Not to mention that their sample size was 32. No offense (really!), but this kind of criticism makes me suspect that you don't know much about research and st

>Not to mention that their sample size was 32. No offense (really!), but this kind of criticism makes me suspect that you don't know much about research and statistics. Statistical power matters, not the sample size, per se. If you want to criticize the size of n, you have to tell us what makes you think they have insufficient statistical power (which will invariably involve estimating an effect size for us). Your previous points are well-taken, though.