Wearing my Admin hat, I often have to contemplate not posting research that I think is so bad that is offers nothing of value, takes time to post and wastes users time reading it.
Almost always I post it, as I do not want to be accused of cherry picking and leaving something out to present all sides of a topic/issue; and I am also conscious I could be clouded by personal biases.
So it was with the above study as
I decided if to post it or ignore it. If I ignore it, I am hardly likely to be accused of cherry picking as I doubt hardly anyone else will ever come across the study (check the source ..... such is the depth of the alerts systems I use).
I decided to post it, mainly to point put what I just wrote above to background some of what goes on.
Read the abstract; look at the graphs in the full paper (its a pdf). They claim there was a correlation, BUT, look at the p values ... not remotely close to <0.05!!! ... go figure.....how they could have reached the conclusion that they did (and not to mention reliability issues of the measurements!)