On scientific research: The role of statistical modeling and hypothesis testing

Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 348-358

  Harlow, Lisa L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Null hypothesis significance testing; Scientific inference; Statistical modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864299601     PISSN: 15389472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1288584180     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. APA. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Balluerka, N., Gómez, J., & Hidalgo, D. (2005). The controversy over null hypothesis significance testing revisited. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(2), 55-70.
3. Baumrind, D. (1983). Specious causal attributions in the social sciences: The reformulated stepping-stone theory of heroin use as exemplar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1289-1298.
4. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd Ed.). New York: Springer.
5. Chen, L. H., Wu, C.-H., Kee, Y. H., Lin, M.-S., & Shui, S.-H. (2009). Fear of failure, 2 x 2 achievement goal and self-handicapping: An examination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in physical education. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 298-305.
6. Chow, S. L. (1996). Statistical significance: Rationale, validity and utility. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7. Cliff, N. (1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115-126.
8. Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1997). On the logic and purpose of significance testing. Psychological Methods, 2, 161-172.
9. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
10. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
11. Denis, D. (2003). Alternatives to null hypothesis significance testing. Theory & Science, 4, 1-21. Retrieved 9/8/11 from: (http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol4.1/02_denis.html).
12. Devlin, K. (1998). Life by the numbers. New York: Wiley.
13. Filkin, D. (1997). Stephen Hawking's universe. New York: Basic Books.
14. Freedman, D. A. (1987a). As others see us: A case study in path analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12, 101-128.
15. Freedman, D. A. (1987b). A rejoinder on models, metaphors, and fables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12, 206-223.
16. Galton, F. (1889). Natural inheritance. London: MacMillan.
17. Gottdiener, W. H. (2011). Improving the relationship between the randomized clinical trial and real-world clinical practice. Psychotherapy, 48, 231-233.
18. Granaas, M. M. (1998). Model fitting: A better approach. American Psychologist, 53, 800-801.
19. Hagen, R. L. (1997). In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist, 52, 15-24.
20. Hagen, R. L. (1998). A further look at wrong reasons to abandon statistical testing. American Psychologist, 53, 801-803.
21. Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Hayes, B. (2011). Making sense of the world. American Scientist, 99, 420-422.
23. Hoffman, R. (2011). That's interesting. American Scientist, 99, 374-377.
24. Huff, T. E. (2011). Intellectual curiosity and the scientific revolution: A global perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Kaku, M. (2009). Physics of the impossible. New York: Anchor Books.
26. Kline, R. B., (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27. Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15, 124-144.
28. Krause, M. S. (2011). Statistical significance testing and clinical trials. Psychotherapy, 48, 217-222.
29. Krause, M. S. (2011). What are the fundamental facts of a comparison of two treatments' outcomes? Psychotherapy, 48, 234-236.
30. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
31. Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Card, N. A. (Eds.) (2007). Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. McGrath, R. E. (1998). Significance testing: Is there something better? American Psychologist, 53, 796-797.
34. Mulaik, S. A., Raju, N. S., & Harshman, R. A. (1997). There is a time and place for significance testing. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significant tests?, 65-115. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5, 241-302.
36. Ragosa, D. R. (1987). Causal models do not support scientific conclusions: A comment in support of Freedman. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 12, 185-195.
37. Rice, S., & Trafimow, D. (2010). How many people have to die over a type II error? Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 11(5), 387-401.
38. Robinson, D. H., & Levin, J. R. (2010). The not-so-quiet revolution: Cautionary comments on the rejection of hypothesis testing in favor of a 'causal' modeling alternative. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 9(2), 332-339.
39. Rodgers, J. L. (2010a). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 65, 1-12.
40. Rodgers, J. L. (2010b). Statistical and mathematical modeling versus NHST? There's no competition! Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 9(2), 340-347.
41. Rozin, P. (2009). What kind of empirical research should we publish, fund, and reward? A different perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 435-439.
42. Sagan, C. (1997). Billions and billions: Thoughts on life and death at the brink of the millennium. New York: Ballentine Books.
43. Sawilowsky, S. S. (2003). You think you've got trivials? Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2, 218-225.
44. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significant tests?, 37-64. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
46. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 475-494.
47. Thompson-Brenner, H. (2011). Introduction to the special section: Contextualizing significance testing in clinical trials. Psychotherapy, 48, 215-216.
48. Wilkinson, L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
49. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.
50. Wise, E. A. (2011). Statistical significance testing and clinical effectiveness studies. Psychotherapy, 48, 225-228.