Significance Testing in Psychological Research: Some Persisting Issues

Empirical surveys show that reports of significance tests appear in the vast majority of articles in psychological research journals and are relied on by both investigators and journal reviewers when making decisions about replication of experiments and submission and acceptance of research reports Evaluation of claims by critics that significance testing is, nonetheless, counterproductive yields suggestions for improvements of prevailing practices, but also the recommendation that decisions about significance testing versus alternative procedures should remain the province of the individual investigator, unconstrained by mandates or prohibitions by publishers or officials of scientific associations The prime focus for efforts toward improvement of research design and data analysis in psychology and other behavioral sciences should be upgrading the mathematical and general scientific preparation of students preparing for research careers in these fields

[1]  F. Schmidt,et al.  Measurement Error in Psychological Research: Lessons From 26 Research Scenarios , 1996 .

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

[3]  R. Gonzalez.  The Statistics Ritual in Psychological Research , 1994 .

[4]  Gideon Keren,et al.  A Handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences : methodological issues , 1993 .

[5]  Frank L. Schmidt,et al.  What do data really mean? Research findings, meta-analysis, and cumulative knowledge in psychology. , 1992 .

[6]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  On the Tyranny of Hypothesis Testing in the Social Sciences , 1991 .

[7]  William K. Estes.  Statistical models in behavioral research , 1991 .

[8]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies , 1989 .

[9]  G. Vining,et al.  Data Analysis: A Model-Comparison Approach , 1989 .

[10]  G. J. G. Upton,et al.  An Introduction to Statistical Modelling , 1983 .

[11]  D. Holt,et al.  Planning and Analysis of Observational Studies. , 1983 .

[12]  Thomas D. Wickens,et al.  On the choice of design and of test statistic in the analysis of experiments with sampled materials , 1983 .

[13]  J. Dwyer,et al.  Statistical Models for the Social and Behavioral Sciences , 1983 .

[14]  R. P. Carver.  The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing , 1978 .

[15]  A. Greenwald.  Consequences of Prejudice Against the Null Hypothesis , 1975 .

[16]  Mark I. Appelbaum,et al.  Some problems in the nonorthogonal analysis of variance. , 1974 .

[17]  G. Glass,et al.  Consequences of Failure to Meet Assumptions Underlying the Fixed Effects Analyses of Variance and Covariance , 1972 .

[18]  D. Lykken.  Statistical significance in psychological research. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  D. Bakan,et al.  The test of significance in psychological research. , 1966, Psychological bulletin.

[20]  W. W. Rozeboom.  The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  C. A. Boneau,et al.  The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the test. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  G. Box.  NON-NORMALITY AND TESTS ON VARIANCES , 1953 .