Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):194-195 (1998)
|Abstract||If the NHSTP procedure is essential for controlling for chance, why is there little, if any, discussion of the nature of chance by Chow and other advocates of the procedure. Also, many criticisms that Chow takes to be aimed against the NHSTP (null-hypothesis significance-test) procedure are actually directed against the kind of theory that is tested by the procedure.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David Rindskopf (1998). Null-Hypothesis Tests Are Not Completely Stupid, but Bayesian Statistics Are Better. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):215-216.
Nimal Ratnesar & Jim Mackenzie (2006). The Quantitative-Qualitative Distinction and the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Procedure. Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (4):501–509.
Brian D. Haig (2000). Statistical Significance Testing, Hypothetico-Deductive Method, and Theory Evaluation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):292-293.
Michael G. Shafto (1998). Costs and Benefits of Statistical Significance Tests. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):218-219.
Marks R. Nester (1998). Significance Tests Cannot Be Justified in Theory-Corroboration Experiments. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):213-213.
Edward Erwin (1998). The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198.
Siu L. Chow (1998). The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure is Still Warranted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):228-235.
Joseph S. Rossi (1998). Meta-Analysis, Power Analysis, and the Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):216-217.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #95,504 of 722,787 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,787 )
How can I increase my downloads?