MODELING ALPHABETIC RETRIEVAL - REJOINDER TO KLAHR (1994)

In D. Klahr's (1994) reply to J. Scharroo, E. Leeuwenberg, P. F. M. St almeier, and P. G. Vos (1994), he ignored the basic critique on the hi erarchy in D. Klahr, W. G. Chase, and E. Lovelace's ( 1983) model of a lphabetic retrieval. In this rejoinder, I discuss the modeling of alph abetic retrieval and the shape of response time (RT) curves with respe ct to the strong and weak tests and the alphabetic position effect. Fr om discussion of these 2 points. it should be clear why D. Klahr (1994 ) did not deal with the main objections raised in J. Scharroo et al. ( 1994): (a) D. Klahr et al.'s (1983) RT curves did not show the predict ed sawtooth shape and (b) there was no reason to assume an additional level (Level 1) in modeling alphabetic retrieval.