Overcoming the inverse probability fallacy: A comparison of two teaching interventions

Methodology

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 152-158

  Kalinowski, Pawel ^a   Fidler, Fiona ^a   Cumming, Geoff ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bayesian inference; Inverse probability fallacy; Null hypothesis significance testing; Syllogistic reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 69949097601     PISSN: 16141881     EISSN: 16142241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1614-2241.4.4.152     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research, 9th ed. London: Wadsworth.
2. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
3. Carver, R. P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378-399.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
6. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals, and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180.
7. Cumming, G., Finch, S., & Thomason, N. (1999). Educational design for effective learning: Building and using a computer-based learning environment for statistical concepts. In G. Cumming, T. Okamoto, & L. Gomez (Eds.), Advanced research in computers and communications in education (pp. 558-565). Amsterdam, IOS Press.
8. Cumming, G., & Thomason, N. (1995). Learning environments for conceptual change: The case of statistics. In J. Greer (Ed.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 389-396). VA: AACE.
9. Eddy, D. M. (1982). Probabilistic reasoning in clinical medicine: Problems and opportunities. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 249-267). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Falk, R., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1995). Significance tests die hard: The amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory and Psychology, 5, 75-98.
11. Fischhoff, B., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1983). Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective. Psychological Review, 90, 239-260.
12. Gigerenzer, G. (1993). The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning. In G. Keren, & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Gigerenzer, G., Krauss, S., & Vitouch, O. (2004). The null ritual: What you always wanted to know about significance testing but were afraid to ask. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences (pp. 391-408). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Haller, H., & Krauss, S. (2002). Misinterpretations of significance: A problem students share with their teachers? Methods of Psychological Research, 7, 1-20.
15. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Bara, B. G. (1984). Syllogistic inference. Cognition, 16, 1-61.
16. Kline, R. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in the behavioural sciences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17. Lehmann, I. J. (1963). Changes in critical thinking, attitudes and values from freshman to senior years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 305-315.
18. Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null Hypothesis Significance Testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5, 241-301.
19. Oakes, M. W. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
20. Pollard, P., & Richardson, J. T. E. (1987). On the probability of making Type I errors. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 159-163.
21. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, Fla: Academic Press.
22. White, B. (1993). ThinkerTools: Causal models, conceptual change and science education. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 1-100.