The Earth Is Not Round ( p 1⁄4 . 00 )

Continued discussion and debate regarding the appropriate use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has led to greater reliance on effect size testing (EST) in published literature. This article examines the myth that uncritical replacement of NHST with EST will improve our science. The use of NHST and EST is described along with a summary of the arguments offered in support and against both. After addressing the veracity of these assertions, the article describes the concept of the translation mechanism and compares the success of NHST and EST as mechanisms. Finally, the authors suggest changes that may facilitate translation in future research.

[1]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  Determining relative importance of predictors with the observational design. , 1998 .

[2]  J. Rodgers.  The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: a quiet methodological revolution. , 2010, The American psychologist.

[3]  B. Thompson.  Significance, Effect Sizes, Stepwise Methods, and Other Issues: Strong Arguments Move the Field , 2001 .

[4]  Ronald C. Serlin,et al.  Rationality in psychological research: The good-enough principle. , 1985 .

[5]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[6]  R. Landis,et al.  When small effect sizes tell a big story, and when large effect sizes don't. , 2009 .

[7]  W. Dunlap,et al.  On the Logic and Purpose of Significance Testing , 1997 .

[8]  G. Cumming,et al.  Confidence intervals : better answers to better questions. , 2009 .

[9]  Patrick E. Shrout,et al.  Should Significance Tests be Banned? Introduction to a Special Section Exploring the Pros and Cons , 1997 .

[10]  J. Hunter.  Needed: A Ban on the Significance Test , 1997 .

[11]  Julian N. Marewski,et al.  Beyond the null ritual : Formal modeling of psychological processes , 2009 .

[12]  P. Meehl.  Theory-Testing in Psychology and Physics: A Methodological Paradox , 1967, Philosophy of Science.

[13]  H. Stam.  Pythagoreanism, meaning and the appeal to number , 2006 .

[14]  J. Edwards,et al.  The Presence of Something or the Absence of Nothing: Increasing Theoretical Precision in Management Research , 2010 .

[15]  R. Frick.  Accepting the null hypothesis , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[16]  P. Meehl.  Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. , 1978 .

[17]  Leland Wilkinson,et al.  Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals Guidelines and Explanations , 2005 .

[18]  T. Levine,et al.  A Communication Researchers' Guide to Null Hypothesis Significance Testing and Alternatives. , 2008 .

[19]  Marcello Gallucci,et al.  A conceptual and empirical examination of justifications for dichotomization. , 2009, Psychological methods.

[20]  Brett Myors,et al.  Testing the hypothesis that treatments have negligible effects : Minimum-effect tests in the general linear model , 1999 .

[21]  Henry S. Leonard,et al.  Testability and Meaning. , 1937 .

[22]  Willard Van Orman Quine,et al.  Word and Object , 1960 .

[23]  R. Falk,et al.  Significance Tests Die Hard , 1995 .

[24]  F. Schmidt.  Statistical Significance Testing and Cumulative Knowledge in Psychology: Implications for Training of Researchers , 1996 .

[25]  Richard W. Miller,et al.  Fact and Method. Explanation, Confirmation and Reality in the Natural and the Social Sciences. , 1989 .

[26]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[27]  R. Nickerson,et al.  Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. , 2000, Psychological methods.

[28]  Jerzy Neyman,et al.  The testing of statistical hypotheses in relation to probabilities a priori , 1933, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[29]  Jacob Cohen.  The earth is round (p < .05) , 1994 .

[30]  J. Hemphill,et al.  Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. , 2003, The American psychologist.