Advantages And Disadvantages Of Hypothesis Significance Testing

 Inferential statistics helps us to analyze predictions, inferences, or samples about a specific population from the observations that they make. “With inferential statistics, you are trying to reach conclusions that extend beyond the immediate data alone” (Trochim, 2006). The goal for this type of data is to review the sample data to be able to infer what the test group may think. It does this by making judgment of the chance that a difference that is observed between the groups is indeed one that can be counted on that could have otherwise happened by coincidence. In order to help solve the issue of generalization, tests of significance are used. For example, a chi-square test or T-test provides a person with the probability that the analysis’ sample results may or may not represent the respective population. In other words, the tests of significance provides us the likelihood of how the analysis results might have happened by chance in a scenario that a relationship may not exist between the variables in regards to the population that is being studied.

Cohen’s paper The Earth is Round (p>0.05) is a critique of null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST). In his article, Cohen presents his arguments about what is wrong with NHST and suggests ways in which researchers can improve their research, as well as the way they report their research. Cohen’s main point is that researchers who use NHST often misinterpret the meaning of p-values and what can be concluded from them (Cohen, 1994). Cohen also shows that the NHST is close to worthless. NHST is a way to show how unlikely a result would be if the null hypothesis were true. A Type I error is where the researcher incorrectly rejects a true null hypothesis and a Type II error is where the researcher incorrectly accepts the false null

The goal of inferential statistics is to end up rejecting the null hypothesis and concluding that a significant relationship exists; therefore, the null hypothesis always presume no relationship.

(2000). What Alpha Level? In I. Price, Inferential Statistics (p. Chapter 5). New England: University of New England.

The LV team is eager to learn what statistical significance is and why it’s an important construct in the study and use of inferential statistics.

Early on, the social science, including psychology cannot be consider scientific, with an argument that it is social. This was proven wrong, as Jared Diamond (1987) poses the disparity of soft science, including the domain of social science, and hard science, including the domain of natural sciences. To sum up, the two uses varying level of operationalization – thus making the field of social science scientific.

In order to know whether the evidence of research studies are accurate, one must be able to have a fundamental understanding in statistical analyses to determine if such descriptions and findings within manuscripts and articles are presented correctly and explicitly (Sullivan, 2012). Proper use of statistics begins with the understanding of both descriptive and inferential statistics. Correct organization and description of data characteristics from the population sample being studied leads the researcher to identify a hypothesis and formulate inferences about such characteristics. It is with inferential statistics that researchers conduct appropriate tests of significance and determine whether to accept or reject the identified null

1“The Cult of Statistical Significance” was presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Washington, DC, August 3rd, 2009, in a contributed session of the Section on Statistical Education. For comments Ziliak thanks many individuals, but especially Sharon Begley, Ronald Gauch, Rebecca Goldin, Danny Kaplan, Jacques Kibambe Ngoie, Sid Schwartz, Tom Siegfried, Arnold Zellner and above all Milo Schield for organizing an eyebrow-raising and standing-room only session.

Researchers tend to draw conclusions and/or generalizations from the sample of participants in order, to generalize about others that are not in the specific study (Trochim & Donnelly, 2008). Therefore, it is essential that researchers learn

Classic studies in psychology are not worthy of the term — all such studies are vastly over-rated. Discuss.

Where the null estimates no difference in birthweight and the alternative believes subtracting the average weight at birth of indigenous children from non-indigenous will result in a positive value; indicating a lower mean score. Next, the level of significance can be defined;

The reliability of the article lies on the fact that it was recently released this year, making it a current set of news. The article provides my research with valuable information on the test’s results. It allows my research paper to analyze the scientific rationale behind

Source: G. C. Britz, D. W. Emerling, L. B. Hare, R. W. Hoerl, & J. E. Shade. "How to Teach Others to Apply Statistical Thinking." Quality Progress (June 1997): 67--80.

Psychological research may be undertaken on a subset of society; however the importance of the results may have an effect way beyond the group tested. The value of psychological research varies and the same results can be used in different ways by different groups of society.

Kirk (1996) had major criticisms of NHST. According to Kirk, the procedure does not tell researchers what they want to know: In scientific inference, what we want to know is the probability that the null hypothesis (H0) is true given that we have obtained a set of data (D); that is, p(H0|D). What null hypothesis significance testing tells us is the probability of obtaining these data or more extreme data if the null hypothesis is true, p(D|H0). (p. 747) Kirk (1996) went on to explain that NHST was a trivial exercise because the null hypothesis is always false, and rejecting it is merely a matter of having enough power. In this study, we investigated how textbooks treated this major problem of NHST. Current best practice in this area is open to debate (e.g., see Harlow, Mulaik, & Steiger, 1997). A number of prominent researchers advocate the use of confidence intervals in place of NHST on grounds that, for the most part, confidence intervals provide more information than a significance test and still include information necessary to determine statistical significance (Cohen, Gliner, Leech, & Morgan 85 1994; Kirk, 1996). For those who advocate the use of NHST, the null hypothesis of no difference (nil hypothesis) should be replaced by a null hypothesis specifying some nonzero value based on previous research (Cohen, 1994; Mulaik, Raju, & Harshman, 1997). Thus, there would be less chance that a trivial difference between intervention and control