Cited by 93Statistics Education and MethodologiesProbability and Statistical ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests

LOMBARDI, CELIA M., HURLBERT, STUART H.·2009·Austral Ecology

Abstract

Abstract One‐tailed statistical tests are often used in ecology, animal behaviour and in most other fields in the biological and social sciences. Here we review the frequency of their use in the 1989 and 2005 volumes of two journals ( Animal Behaviour and Oecologia ), their advantages and disadvantages, the extensive erroneous advice on them in both older and modern statistics texts and their utility in certain narrow areas of applied research. Of those articles with data sets susceptible to one‐tailed tests, at least 24% in Animal Behaviour and at least 13% in Oecologia used one‐tailed tests at least once. They were used 35% more frequently with nonparametric methods than with parametric ones and about twice as often in 1989 as in 2005. Debate in the psychological literature of the 1950s established the logical criterion that one‐tailed tests should be restricted to situations where there is interest only in results in one direction. ‘Interest’ should be defined; however, in terms of collective or societal interest and not by the individual investigator. By this ‘collective interest’ criterion, all uses of one‐tailed tests in the journals surveyed seem invalid. In his book Nonparametric Statistics, S. Siegel unrelentingly suggested the use of one‐tailed tests whenever the investigator predicts the direction of a result. That work has been a major proximate source of confusion on this issue, but so are most recent statistics textbooks. The utility of one‐tailed tests in research aimed at obtaining regulatory approval of new drugs and new pesticides is briefly described, to exemplify the narrow range of research situations where such tests can be appropriate. These situations are characterized by null hypotheses stating that the difference or effect size does not exceed, or is at least as great as, some ‘amount of practical interest’. One‐tailed tests rarely should be used for basic or applied research in ecology, animal behaviour or any other science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2009.01946.x

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LOMBARDI, C. M., & HURLBERT, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • San Diego State University (US)
Corresponding author
LOMBARDI, CELIA M.
Venue
Austral Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-05-28
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
447-468
ISSN
  • 1442-9985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1442-9993
OpenAlex
W1980655238
Cited by
93
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Austral Ecology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
one-tailed tests, misuse of statistics, nonparametric statistics, statistics textbook, drug approval, pesticide approval, null hypothesis, animal behavior

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