Research news and Comment
Reflections on Statistical and Substantive Significance, With a Slice of Replication
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 9734619 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Daniel H Robinson (0000-0003-0384-704X, autor correspondente), Joel R Levin |
| Ano | 1997 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Fascículo | 5 |
| Páginas | 21-26 |
| Data de publicação | 1997-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Educational Researcher (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0013-189X • E-ISSN: 1935-102X |
| Editora | American Educational Research Association (AERA) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3102/0013189x026005021 |
| OpenAlex | W1963500756 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 24 |
| Referências citadas | 13 |
In this comment, we propose some modifications to Thompson’s (1996) recent suggestions for AERA editorial policy on statistical significance testing. First, we discuss the potential problems, both procedural and conceptual, that could arise from professional journals mandating the addition of the modifier “statistically” to “significant.” If language remains an issue of consequence, however, findings stemming from rejected null hypotheses could be termed “nonchance” to communicate simply and more precisely what it is that a statistical test reveals. Second, although asking authors to provide explicit effect-size information is both sensible and useful, we illustrate how effect sizes (like p values) can be misinterpreted and misused. Finally, in accord with Thompson, we argue that greater attention to replication should be encouraged in educational research. At the same time, we believe that internal replication analyses do not represent adequate substitutes for (or even close approximations to) external replication studies based on new, independent participants. With journals welcoming both constructed and literal replication studies, consumers of the educational research literature can concentrate less on the limited believability of one-time findings and more on the enhanced believability of repeatable and generalizable ones
Cognitive psychology · Econometrics · Epistemology · Null (SQL · Null hypothesis · Replication (statistics · Statistical hypothesis testing · Statistics · Test (biology · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Computer Science · Educational Assessment and Improvement · Mathematics · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Psychology · Social Psychology
Statistical Significance Tests, Effect Size Reporting and the Vain Pursuit of Pseudo-Objectivity
If Statistical Significance Tests are Broken/Misused, What Practices Should Supplement or Replace Them
Understanding Meta-Analysis
Statistical Significance with Comments by Editors of Marketing Journals
Statistical Significance should not be Considered one of Life’s Guarantees
Measures of Effect Size for Comparative Studies
How Many Studies Do You Need?
Statistical Practices of Educational Researchers
Communicating Judgments About Practical Significance
The Potential for Conflict Index
Who wants to be a sportsperson? Student aspirations for sporting careers
Further Comments on Statistical Significance Tests
The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust
Null Hypothesis Significance Testing
RNICE Model
Research news and Comment
Research news and Comment
Research news and Comment
What Future Quantitative Social Science Research Could Look Like
Shaping Up the Practice of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing
Methodological Concerns About the Education Value-Added Assessment System
Does house arrest impede the working alliance between probation officers and their clients? A comparison of home detention and probation cases
Australian School Student Aspirations for Military Careers
Athletes' use of analgesics is related to doping attitudes, competitive anxiety, and situational opportunity
The Case Against Statistical Significance Testing
Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology
Practical Significance
The earth is round (p < .05)
Statistical Significance, Result Importance, and Result Generalizability
Combining results of independent studies
The Significance Test Controversy
| Obras citantes distintas | 24 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,86 |
| Intervalo de citações | 1998 - 2025 (28) |
| Velocidade de citação | recent |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 19 |