This paper serves to demonstrate that the practise of using one, two, or three asterisks (according to a type-I-risk α either 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001) in significance testing as given particularly with regard to empirical research in psychology is in no way in accordance with the Neyman-Pearson theory of statistical hypothesis testing. Claiming a-posteriori that even a low type-I-risk α leads to significance merely discloses a researcher’s self-deception. Furthermore it will be emphasised that by using sequential sampling procedures instead of fixed sample sizes the „practice of asterisks“ would not arise. Besides this, a simulation study will show that sequential sampling procedures are not only efficient concerning a lower sample size but are also robust and nevertheless powerful in the case of non-normal distributions.
[1]
H. Thoeni.
Verfahrensbibliothek: Versuchsplanung und -auswertung, band 1
,
1997
.
[2]
Allen I. Fleishman.
A method for simulating non-normal distributions
,
1978
.
[3]
R. Zajonc,et al.
Family configuration and intelligence.
,
1976,
Science.
[4]
H. Breland.
Birth order, family size, and intelligence.
,
1974,
Science.
[5]
V. Guiard,et al.
The robustness of parametric statistical methods
,
2004
.
[6]
L. R. Verdooren,et al.
Fundamentals in the Design and Analysis of Experiments and Surveys - Grundlagen der Planung und Auswertung von Versuchen und Erhebungen
,
1999
.