A peculiar prevalence of p values just below .05

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 65, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 2271-2279

  Masicampo, E J ^a   Lalande, Daniel R ^b  

^a WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À CHICOUTIMI   (Canada)

Author keywords

Hypothesis testing; Statistical inference; Statistics

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; HUMAN; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; STATISTICS;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; PREVALENCE; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLICATION BIAS; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84867871106     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2012.711335     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Carver, R. P. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48: 378-399.
2. Cicchetti, D. V., Koenig, K., Klin, A., Volkmar, F. R., Paul, R. and Sparrow, S. 2011. From Bayes through marginal utility to effect sizes: A guide to understanding the clinical and statistical significance of the results of autism research findings. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(2): 168-174.
3. Clark, C. A. 1963. Hypothesis testing in relation to statistical methodology. Review of Educational Research, 33: 455-473.
4. Cohen, J. 1994. The earth is round (p<.05). American Psychologist, 49: 997-1003.
5. Cox, M. K. and Key, C. H. 1993. Post hoc pair-wise comparisons for the chi-square test of homogeneity of proportions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53: 951-962.
6. Cumming, G. 2008. Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3: 286-300.
7. Cumming, G., Fidler, F., Leonard, M., Kalinowski, P., Christiansen, A.Kleinig, A. 2007. Statistical reform in psychology: Is anything changing?. Psychological Science, 18: 230-232.
8. Hubbard, R., & Lindsay, R. M. (2008). Why p values are not a useful measure of evidence in statistical significance testing. Theory & Psychology, 18, 69-88.
9. Iverson, G. J., Lee, M. D. and Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2009. Prep misestimates the probability of replication. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(2): 424-429.
10. Killeen, P. R. 2005. An alternative to null hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16: 345-353.
11. Kline, R. B. 2004. Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in the behavioral sciences, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
12. Kline, R. B. 2009. Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters, New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
13. Nickerson, R. S. 2000. Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2): 241-301.
14. Ocana, A. and Tannock, I. F. 2011. When are "positive" clinical trials in oncology truly positive?. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 103: 16-20.
15. Poitevineau, J. and Lecoutre, B. 2001. Interpretation of significance levels by psychological researchers: The.05 cliff effect may be overstated. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8: 847-850.
16. Rosenthal, R. 1979. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638-641.
17. Rosenthal, R. and Gaito, J. 1963. The interpretation of levels of significance by psychological researchers. Journal of Psychology, 55: 33-38.
18. Rozeboom, W. W. 1960. The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57: 416-428.
19. Sackett, D. L. 1979. Bias in analytic research. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 32: 51-63.
20. Schmidt, F. L. 1996. Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1: 115-129.
21. Sellke, T., Bayarri, M. J. and Berger, J. O. 2001. Calibration of p values for testing precise null hypotheses. The American Statistician, 55: 62-71.
22. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. and Simonsohn, U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22: 1359-1366.
23. Sterling, T. D. 1959. Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance-or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54: 30-34.
24. Trafimow, D. 2003. Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: Surprising insights from Bayes's theorem. Psychological Review, 110: 526-535.
25. rep close to the true replication probability?. Psychological Methods, 15(3): 300-307.
26. Wagenmakers, E.-J. 2007. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5): 779-804.
27. Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D. and van der Maas, H. L. J. 2011. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3): 426-432.
28. Wicherts, J. M., Bakker, M. and Molenaar, D. 2011. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PLoS ONE, 6(11) e26828