Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):213-213 (1998)
Chow's one-tailed null-hypothesis significance-test procedure, with its rationale based on the elimination of chance influences, is not appropriate for theory-corroboration experiments. Estimated effect sizes and their associated standard errors or confidence limits will always suffice.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Significance Testing – Does It Need This Defence?Günther Palm - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):214-215.
Images Are Not the Evidence in Neuroimaging.Colin Klein - 2010 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (2):265-278.
The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure: Can't Live with It, Can't Live Without It.Charles F. Blaich - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):194-195.
The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing.Edward Erwin - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198.
The Null-Hypothesis Significance-Test Procedure is Still Warranted.Siu L. Chow - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):228-235.
The Big Test of Corroboration.Darrell P. Rowbottom - 2008 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22 (3):293 – 302.
A Plea for Popperian Significance Testing.Zeno G. Swijtink - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):220-221.
Significance Tests and Deduction: Reply to Folger (1989).Siu L. Chow - 1989 - Philosophical Explorations.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads10 ( #428,836 of 2,163,853 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,100 of 2,163,853 )
How can I increase my downloads?