CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceProbability and Statistical Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When should we use one-tailed hypothesis testing?

Open access
Ruxton, Graeme D., Neuhäuser, Markus·2010·Methods in Ecology and Evolution
DOI 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00014.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Summary: 1. Although one‐tailed hypothesis tests are commonly used, clear justification for why this approach is used is often missing from published papers. 2. Here we suggest explicit questions authors should ask of themselves when deciding whether or not to adopt one‐tailed tests. 3. First, we suggest that authors should only use a one‐tailed test if they can explain why they are more interested in an effect in one direction and not the other. 4. We suggest a further requirement that adoption of one‐tailed testing requires an explanation why the authors would treat a large observed difference in the unexpected direction no differently from a difference in the expected direction that was not strong enough to justify rejection of the null hypothesis. 5. These justifications should be included in published works that use one‐tailed tests, allowing editors, reviewers and readers the ability to evaluate the appropriateness of the adoption of one‐tailed testing. 6. We feel that adherence to our suggestions will allow authors to use one‐tailed tests more appropriately, and readers to form their own opinion about such appropriateness when one‐tailed tests are used.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00014.x

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Welkowitz J., 1971, Introductory Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–269 of 269

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ruxton, G. D., & Neuhäuser, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Koblenz University of Applied Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Ruxton, Graeme D.
ORCID
Venue
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-05-04
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
114-117
ISSN
2041-210X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00014.x
OpenAlex
W1563749973
Cited by
269
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Methods in Ecology and Evolution (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
Keywords
null hypothesis significance testing, statistical reporting guidelines, research reproducibility

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