Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal
      

 

Korneev A.A., Rasskazova E.I., Kichevets A.N., Koyfman A.Ya. Criticism of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: Limitations and Possible Ways Out. Part II


KORNEEV A.A., RASSKAZOVA E.I., KICHEVETS A.N., KOYFMAN A.YA. CRITICISM OF NULL HYPOTHESIS SIGNIFICANCE TESTING: LIMITATIONS AND POSSIBLE WAYS OUT. PART II
Full text in Russian: Корнеев А.А., Рассказова Е.И., Кричевец А.Н., Койфман А.Я. Критика методологии проверки нулевой гипотезы: ограничения и возможные пути выхода. Часть II

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

About authors
Suggested citation


The paper continues the previous publication in the journal (Vol. 9, No. 45), which was devoted to criticism of the wide-spread approach in the  statistical inferences, so called Null-hypothesis significance testing. In the second part we discuss the necessity of science social organization reformation, and describe some corresponding tendencies in the modern science: (1) equal chance for both significant and insignificant results of a research to be published; (2) pre-registration of the upcoming study design / project; (3) experimental data becomes available in the form suitable for meta-analysis; (4) the emphasis shifting from the single experiment result to the meta-analytical integration of the results.

Keywords: null hypothesis significance testing, statistical inference, p-value, meta-analysis

 

References

Arnqvist G., Wooster D. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 1995, 10(6),  236–240.

Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P.T., Rothstein H.R. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2009.

Carver R. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48(3), 378–399.

Cohen J. The earth is round (p < .05): Rejoinder. American Psychologist, 1994, 50(12), 997–1003.

Cumming G. The new statistics why and how. Psychological Science, 2013, No. 25,  7–29.

Dutta S., Pullig C. A commentary on reporting effect size and confidence intervals: Response to Palmer and Strelan (2014). Journal of Business Research, 2015, 68(5), 1082–1085.

Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics, 2011,  90(3), 891–904.

Kornilov S.A., Kornilova T.V. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 2010, 31(5),  5–17. (in Russian)

Møller A.P., Jennions M.D. Testing and adjusting for publication bias. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2001, 16(10), 580–586.

Nakagawa S., Hauber M.E. Great challenges with few subjects: statistical strategies for neuroscientists. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 2011, 35(3), 462–473.

Open Science Collaboration et al. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 2015, 349(6251),  aac4716.

Rosenthal R., DiMatteo M. Meta-analysis. In: J. Wixted (Ed.),  Steven’s Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 3rd ed. Methodology. New York, NY: Wiley, 2002. Vol. 4, pp. 391–428.

Rothstein H., Sutton A.,  Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 2002. pp. 1–7.

Smith M.L. Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in Education, 1980, Vol. 4, 22–24.

Smith M.L., Glass G.V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 1977, 32(9), 752.

Takahashi S. et al. The manga guide to statistics. San Francisco: No Starch Press, 2008.

Thornton A., Lee P. Publication bias in meta-analysis: its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2000, 53(2), 207–216.

Wasserstein R.L., Lazar N.A. The ASA's statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose.  The American Statistician, 2016. (in press) doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

Webb T.L., Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence . Psychological Bulletin, 2006, 132(2), 249–268.

Received 11 March 2016. Date of publication: 30 June 2016.

About authors

Korneev Aleksei A. Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Laboratory of Neuropsychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, ul. Mokhovaya, 11–9, 125009 Moscow, Russia; Senior Research Associate, Laboratory of Neurophysiology of Cognitive Processes, Institute of Developmental Physiology, Russian Academy of Education, ul. Pogodinskaya, 8–2, 119121 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Rasskazova Elena I. Ph.D., Associate Professor, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, ul. Mokhovaya, 11–9, 125009 Moscow, Russia; Senior Research Associate, Mental Health Research Center, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Kashirskoe shosse, 34, 115522 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Krichevets Anatoly N. Ph.D., Professor, Department of Methodology of Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, ul. Mokhovaya, 11–9, 125009 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Koyfman Aleksandra Ya. Psychologist, Department of Educational Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, ul. Mokhovaya, 11–9, 125009 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Korneev A.A., Rasskazova E.I., Kichevets A.N., Koyfman A.Ya. Criticism of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: Limitations and Possible Ways Out. Part II. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2016, Vol. 9, No. 47, p. 6. http://psystudy.ru (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/eng/2016v9n47e/1296-korneev47e.html

Back to top >>