Dados Bibliográficos

AUTOR(ES) R.J. Smith
AFILIAÇÃO(ÕES) Department of Anthropology Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis MO, 63130
ANO 2018
TIPO Artigo
PERIÓDICO American Journal of Physical Anthropology
ISSN 0002-9483
E-ISSN 1096-8644
EDITORA Berghahn Journals (United Kingdom)
DOI 10.1002/ajpa.23399
CITAÇÕES 16
ADICIONADO EM 2025-08-18
MD5 7fc630646b3444096b0341bbb81bdf3a

Resumo

There is over 60 years of discussion in the statistical literature concerning the misuse and limitations of null hypothesis significance tests (NHST). Based on the prevalence of NHST in biological anthropology research, it appears that the discipline generally is unaware of these concerns. The p values used in NHST usually are interpreted incorrectly. A p value indicates the probability of the data given the null hypothesis. It should not be interpreted as the probability that the null hypothesis is true or as evidence for or against any specific alternative to the null hypothesis. P values are a function of both the sample size and the effect size, and therefore do not indicate whether the effect observed in the study is important, large, or small. P values have poor replicability in repeated experiments. The distribution of p values is continuous and varies from 0 to 1.0. The use of a cut‐off, generally p ≤ 0.05, to separate significant from nonsignificant results, is an arbitrary dichotomization of continuous variation. In 2016, the American Statistical Association issued a statement of principles regarding the misinterpretation of NHST, the first time it has done so regarding a specific statistical procedure in its 180‐year history. Effect sizes and confidence intervals, which can be calculated for any data used to calculate p values, provide more and better information about tested hypotheses than p values and NHST.

Ferramentas