2017
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01715
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commentary: Psychological Science's Aversion to the Null

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Statistical contrast tests comparing the p value of empirical result with the level of significance continue to be the preferred statistical tool used by researchers who do not comprehend the importance of ascertaining the practical importance of the statistically significant differences detected. Studies from different countries have shown that students, researchers, and professionals do not learn about philosophical fallacies, replication, the effect size, and clinical significance (Badenes‐Ribera, Frias‐Navarro, Iotti, Bonilla‐Campos, & Longobardi, 2016, 2018; Badenes‐Ribera, Frias‐Navarro, Monterde‐i‐Bort, & Pascual‐Soler, 2015; Bort, Llobell, & Navarro, 2006; Haller & Krauss, 2002; Mittag & Thompson, 2000; Perezgonzalez, Frias‐Navarro, & Pascual‐Llobell, 2017; Perezgonzalez, Pascual‐Soler, Pascual‐Llobell, & Frias‐Navarro, 2019). Due to the broad and continued use of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), further methodological reflections and evaluations of the implications of NHST for scientific investigations are needed.…”
Section: False Positive Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Statistical contrast tests comparing the p value of empirical result with the level of significance continue to be the preferred statistical tool used by researchers who do not comprehend the importance of ascertaining the practical importance of the statistically significant differences detected. Studies from different countries have shown that students, researchers, and professionals do not learn about philosophical fallacies, replication, the effect size, and clinical significance (Badenes‐Ribera, Frias‐Navarro, Iotti, Bonilla‐Campos, & Longobardi, 2016, 2018; Badenes‐Ribera, Frias‐Navarro, Monterde‐i‐Bort, & Pascual‐Soler, 2015; Bort, Llobell, & Navarro, 2006; Haller & Krauss, 2002; Mittag & Thompson, 2000; Perezgonzalez, Frias‐Navarro, & Pascual‐Llobell, 2017; Perezgonzalez, Pascual‐Soler, Pascual‐Llobell, & Frias‐Navarro, 2019). Due to the broad and continued use of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), further methodological reflections and evaluations of the implications of NHST for scientific investigations are needed.…”
Section: False Positive Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%