Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harris, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Other

Significance Tests are Not Enough

The Role of Effect-Size Estimation in Theory Corroboration

Monica J. Harris

University Of Kentucky

Chow (1991) distinguishes between `practical impact' and `conceptual rigor' research, and he concludes that effect-size estimation is useful only in practical impact research. I argue that significance tests do not answer substantive questions about the data and are useful only as a check that the results are unlikely to have occurred by chance. Chow's decision to regard the similarity between data and prediction as being a dichotomous judgment made on the basis of significance testing is therefore unwise. I conclude that effect sizes are the single best index of the relationship between theoretical predictions and the obtained data. The role of replications and meta-analysis in advancing theory is also discussed.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 1, No. 3, 375-382 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354391013007
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 The Counseling PsychologistHome page
R. K. Henson
Effect-Size Measures and Meta-Analytic Thinking in Counseling Psychology Research
The Counseling Psychologist, September 1, 2006; 34(5): 601 - 629.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
F. Baugh
Correcting Effect Sizes for Score Reliability: A Reminder that Measurement and Substantive Issues are Linked Inextricably
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 2002; 62(2): 254 - 263.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
T. Vacha-Haase
Statistical Significance should not be Considered one of Life's Guarantees: Effect Sizes are Needed
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 2001; 61(2): 219 - 224.
[PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
B. Thompson
If Statistical Significance Tests are Broken/Misused, What Practices Should Supplement or Replace Them?
Theory Psychology, April 1, 1999; 9(2): 165 - 181.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
R. Hubbard, R. A. Parsa, and M. R. Luthy
The Spread of Statistical Significance Testing in Psychology: The Case of the Journal of Applied Psychology, 1917-1994
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1997; 7(4): 545 - 554.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
S. L. Chow
Rigor and Logic: A Response to Comments on `Conceptual Rigor'
Theory Psychology, August 1, 1991; 1(3): 389 - 400.
[Abstract]