This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Frick, R. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Defending the Statistical Status Quo

SUNY at Stony Brookrfrick{at}sunysb.edu

The practices suggested by Thompson (1999) have not been adopted by researchers because they would rarely be useful. There are problems with reports of effect size that depend on methodological details. The practical importance of a finding depends on personal circumstances, and the researcher’s personal evaluation of that importance is outside the purview of science. Researchers are concerned with the accuracy of their conclusion, and given pcalculated, estimates of replicability add no information to this issue.

Key Words: confidence intervals • effect size • replication • statistical testing

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 183-189 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/095935439992002


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Thompson Statistical Significance Tests, Effect Size Reporting and the Vain Pursuit of Pseudo-Objectivity Theory Psychology, April 1, 1999; 9(2): 191 - 196. [Abstract] [PDF]