Misuse of null hypothesis significance testing: Would estimation of positive and negative predictive values improve certainty of chemical risk assessment?

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Volumn 20, Issue 10, 2013, Pages 7341-7347

  Bundschuh, Mirco ^a,b   Newman, Michael C ^c   Zubrod, Jochen P ^a   Seitz, Frank ^a   Rosenfeldt, Ricki R ^a   Schulz, Ralf ^a  

^a University of Koblenz Landau   (Germany)

^b SWEDISH UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES   (Sweden)

^c VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE   (United States)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Effect size; Power analysis; Sample size; Type I error rate; Type II error rate

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL POLLUTANT; CRUSTACEAN; ECOTOXICOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL RISK; ERROR ANALYSIS; HYPOTHESIS TESTING; PESTICIDE; PROBABILITY; REPRODUCTIVE PRODUCTIVITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DANGEROUS GOODS; DAPHNIA; METHODOLOGY; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; DAPHNIA; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

DAPHNIA MAGNA; NUCLEOPOLYHEDROVIRUS;

EID: 84884701944     PISSN: 09441344     EISSN: 16147499     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-013-1749-z     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Altman DG, Bland JM (1994) Diagnostic tests 2: predictive values. British Med J 309: 102.
2. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (2000) Statistics with confidence, 2nd edn. BMJ Books, Bristol.
3. Antunes SC, Castro BB, Goncalves F (2004) Effect of food level on the acute and chronic responses of daphnids to lindane. Environ Pollut 127: 367-375.
4. ASTM (2007) ASTM E729-96: Standard guide for conducting acute toxicity tests on test materials with fishes, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, doi: 10. 1520/E0729-96R07.
5. Bundschuh M, Zubrod JP, Seitz F, Newman MC, Schulz R (2011) Mercury-contaminated sediments affect amphipod feeding. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 60: 437-443.
6. Crane M, Newman MC (2000) What level of effect is a no observed effect? Environ Toxicol Chem 19: 516-519.
7. DeCoen WM, Janssen CR (1997) The use of biomarkers in Daphnia magna toxicity testing. IV. cellular energy allocation: a new methodology to assess the energy budget of toxicant-stressed Daphnia populations. J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery 6: 43-55.
8. Dunnett CW (1955) A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 50: 1096-1121.
9. Ferrando MD, Sancho E, Andreumoliner E (1995) Effects of lindane on Daphnia magna during chronic exposure. J Environ Sci Health Part B 30: 815-825.
10. Fox DR (2009) Is the ECx a legitimate surrogate for a NOEC? Integr Environ Assess Manag 5: 351-353.
11. Fox DR (2010) A Bayesian approach for determining the no effect concentration and hazardous concentration in ecotoxicology. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73: 123-131.
12. Gigerenzer G (2004) Mindless statistics. J Socio-Econom 33: 587-606.
13. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why most published research findings are false. Plos Med 2: 696-701.
14. Jager T (2012) Bad habits die hard: the NOEC's persistence reflects poorly on ecotoxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 31: 228-229.
15. Kline RB (2004) Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. American Psychological Association, Washington.
16. Landis WG, Chapman PM (2011). Well past time to stop using NOELs and LOELs. Integr Environ Assess Manag 7: vi-viii.
17. Mudge JF, Baker LF, Edge CB, Houlahan JE (2012) Setting an optimal alpha that minimizes errors in null hypothesis significance tests. PlosOne 7: e32734.
18. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev 82: 591-605.
19. Nakagawa S, Forster TM (2004) The case against retrospective statisical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. Acta etholog 7: 103-108.
20. Newman MC (2008) "What exactly are you inferring?" A closer look at hypothesis testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 27: 1013-1019.
21. Newman MC (2013) Quantitative ecotoxicology. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton.
22. OECD (2008) OECD 211: Daphnia magna reproduction test. OECD Publishing, Paris.
23. Preuss TG, Hammers-Wirtz M, Ratte HT (2010) The potential of individual based population models to extrapolate effects measured at standardized test conditions to relevant environmental conditions-an example for 3, 4-dichloroaniline on Daphnia magna. J Environ Monit 12: 2070-2079.
24. van der Hoeven N (1998) Power analysis for the NOEC: what is the probability of detecting small toxic effects on three different species using the appropriate standardized test protocols? Ecotoxicology 7: 355-361.
25. Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, El Ghormli L, Rothman N (2004) Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies. J Nation Cancer Inst 96: 434-442.
26. Zubrod JP, Bundschuh M, Feckler A, Englert D, Schulz R (2011) Ecotoxicological impact of the fungicide tebuconazole on an aquatic decomposer-detritivore system. Environ Toxicol Chem 30: 2718-2724.