The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the logic and purpose of significance testing.
Abstract
There has been much recent attention given to the problems involved with the traditional approach to null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). Many have suggested that, perhaps, NHST should be abandoned altogether in favor of other bases for conclusions such as confidence intervals and effect size estimates (e.g., Schmidt, 1996). The purposes of this article are to (a) review the function that data analysis is supposed to serve in the social sciences, (b) examine the ways in which these functions are performed by NHST, (c) examine the case against NHST, and (d) evaluate interval-based estimation as an alternative to NHST.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“in many cases, researchers aim to decide whether significant results are consistent or inconsistent with directional (dividing) hypotheses”
From Does preregistration improve the credibility of research findings? (2020) · cites this paper as Cortina & Dunlap, 1997, p. 168
Citations
Cites
THE BIG FIVE PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS AND JOB PERFORMANCE: A META‐ANALYSIS
BARRICK, M. R., & MOUNT, M. K. (1991) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x · Cited by 8,689
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0022658 · Cited by 3,060
A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values
Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03194105 · Cited by 2,490
“In the psychological literature, the pros and cons of NHST have been, and continue to be, hotly debated (see, e.g., Cohen, 1994; Cortina & Dunlap, 1997; Cum-ming, 2007; Dixon, 2003; Frick, 1996; Gigerenzer, 1993, 1998; Hagen, 1997; Killeen, 2005a, 2006; M. D. Lee & Wagenmakers, 2005; Loftus, 1996,…”
Ellis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461
Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy
Nickerson, R. S. (2000) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.5.2.241 · Cited by 1,090
Statistical Evidence in Experimental Psychology: An Empirical Comparison Using 855 t Tests
Wetzels, R., Matzke, D., Lee, M. D., Rouder, J. N., Iverson, G. J., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611406923 · Cited by 945
Metadata
- Authors
- Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 1997-06
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-172
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2153986420
- Cited by
- 166
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 13.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- null hypothesis significance testing, confidence intervals, effect size estimation, social science research, statistical inference
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
