Statistical Significance Testing From Three Perspectives

LET ME BEGIN by extending accolades to the authors of these provocative papers for awakening our consciousness about the potential problems and pitfalls of advancing science through significance testing. The operative word in the pre ceding sentence is potential, however, for in my generic comments I will attempt to make a case?albeit a rudimentary one?in defense of significance testing. I will do so for two reasons.

[1]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  A controlled, powerful multiple-comparison strategy for several situations. , 1994 .

[2]  Carl J. Huberty,et al.  Historical Origins of Statistical Testing Practices: The Treatment of Fisher versus Neyman-Pearson Views in Textbooks. , 1993 .

[3]  R. P. Carver.  The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing, Revisited , 1993 .

[4]  James P. Shaver,et al.  What Statistical Significance Testing Is, and What It Is Not , 1993 .

[5]  Patricia Snyder,et al.  Evaluating Results Using Corrected and Uncorrected Effect Size Estimates , 1993 .

[6]  R. Serlin.  Confidence Intervals and the Scientific Method: A Case for Holm on the Range. , 1993 .

[7]  Bruce Thompson,et al.  The Use of Statistical Significance Tests in Research: Bootstrap and Other Alternatives , 1993 .

[8]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  Publishing in the Journal of Educational Psychology: Reflections at midstream. , 1993 .

[9]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  New developments in pairwise multiple comparisons : some powerful and practicable procedures , 1991 .

[10]  Reuven Dar,et al.  Another look at Meehl, Lakatos, and the scientific practices of psychologists. , 1987 .

[11]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  Some Methodological and Statistical “Bugs” in Research on Children’s Learning , 1985 .

[12]  Joel R. Levin,et al.  DETERMINING SAMPLE SIZE FOR PLANNED AND POST HOC ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COMPARISONS1 , 1975 .

[13]  D. Campbell,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR RESEARCH , 2012 .