Cited by 965Advanced Statistical Methods and ModelsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceProbability and Statistical Research

Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research.

Open access
Erceg-Hurn, David M., Mirosevich, Vikki M.·2008·American Psychologist

Abstract

Classic parametric statistical significance tests, such as analysis of variance and least squares regression, are widely used by researchers in many disciplines, including psychology. For classic parametric tests to produce accurate results, the assumptions underlying them (e.g., normality and homoscedasticity) must be satisfied. These assumptions are rarely met when analyzing real data. The use of classic parametric methods with violated assumptions can result in the inaccurate computation of p values, effect sizes, and confidence intervals. This may lead to substantive errors in the interpretation of data. Many modern robust statistical methods alleviate the problems inherent in using parametric methods with violated assumptions, yet modern methods are rarely used by researchers. The authors examine why this is the case, arguing that most researchers are unaware of the serious limitations of classic methods and are unfamiliar with modern alternatives. A range of modern robust and rank-based significance tests suitable for analyzing a wide range of designs is introduced. Practical advice on conducting modern analyses using software such as SPSS, SAS, and R is provided. The authors conclude by discussing robust effect size indices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0003-066x.63.7.591

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates with 10,000 samples were used; this approach gives a powerful mediation test and tolerates small normality departures.

    “We examined the total, direct, and indirect effects of each predictor variable on outcomes using bias-corrected bootstrapped estimates (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993) based on 10,000 bootstrapped samples, which provides a powerful test of mediation (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007) and is robust to small departures from normality (Erceg-Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31, 144-152.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M.
Affiliations
Government of Western Australia (AU)
Venue
American Psychologist
Published
2008
Volume
63
Issue
7
Pages
591-601
ISSN
  • 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-990X
OpenAlex
W2102493402
Cited by
959
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 77 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 66 · 2016: 73 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 41
FWCI
20.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
robust statistics, rank tests, nonparametric tests, normality, homoscedasticity, statistical power, significance testing
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research, Software, Statistics, Nonparametric

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review