|Abstract||This paper is a reply to some comments made by Green (2002) on Chow’s (2002) critique of Wilkinson and Task Force's (1999) report on statistical inference. Issues raised are (a) the inappropriateness of accepting methodological prescription on authority, (ii) the vacuity of non-falsifiable theories, (iii) the need to distinguish between experiment and metaexperiment, and (iv) the probability foundation of the nullhypothesis significancetest procedure (NHSTP). This reply is intended to foster a better understanding of research methods in general, and of the role of NHSTP in empirical research in particular.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Reuven Dar (1998). Null Hypothesis Tests and Theory Corroboration: Defending NHSTP Out of Context. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):196-197.
Charles F. Blaich (1998). The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure: Can't Live with It, Can't Live Without It. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):194-195.
Günther Palm (1998). Significance Testing – Does It Need This Defence? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):214-215.
Brian R. Lashley (1998). A Defense of Statistical Power Analysis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):209-210.
Joseph S. Rossi (1998). Meta-Analysis, Power Analysis, and the Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):216-217.
Michael G. Shafto (1998). Costs and Benefits of Statistical Significance Tests. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):218-219.
Siu L. Chow (1998). The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure is Still Warranted. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):228-235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #113,901 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,438 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?