Graduate studies at Western
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198 (1998)
|Abstract||In this commentary, I agree with Chow's treatment of null hypothesis significance testing as a noninferential procedure. However, I dispute his reconstruction of the logic of theory corroboration. I also challenge recent criticisms of NHSTP based on power analysis and meta-analysis.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Henderikus J. Stam & Grant A. Pasay (1998). The Historical Case Against Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):219-220.
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.
Brian D. Haig (2000). Statistical Significance Testing, Hypothetico-Deductive Method, and Theory Evaluation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (2):292-293.
David Rindskopf (1998). Null-Hypothesis Tests Are Not Completely Stupid, but Bayesian Statistics Are Better. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):215-216.
Joseph S. Rossi (1998). Meta-Analysis, Power Analysis, and the Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):216-217.
Günther Palm (1998). Significance Testing – Does It Need This Defence? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):214-215.
Bruno D. Zumbo (1998). A Viable Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):227-228.
Robert W. Frick (1998). Chow's Defense of Null-Hypothesis Testing: Too Traditional? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):199-199.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #90,533 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?