Cited by 298Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 196 of the 197 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When Null Hypothesis Significance Testing Is Unsuitable for Research: A Reassessment

Open access
Szucs, Denes, Ioannidis, John P. A.·2017·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) has several shortcomings that are likely contributing factors behind the widely debated replication crisis of (cognitive) neuroscience, psychology, and biomedical science in general. We review these shortcomings and suggest that, after sustained negative experience, NHST should no longer be the default, dominant statistical practice of all biomedical and psychological research. If theoretical predictions are weak we should not rely on all or nothing hypothesis tests. Different inferential methods may be most suitable for different types of research questions. Whenever researchers use NHST they should justify its use, and publish pre-study power calculations and effect sizes, including negative findings. Hypothesis-testing studies should be pre-registered and optimally raw data published. The current statistics lite educational approach for students that has sustained the widespread, spurious use of NHST should be phased out.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00390

Cites

196 of 196 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 197 references

1 of the 197 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Chaisson, 2017, Astronomy Today
  2. Cohen, 1988, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences
  3. Fisher, 1925, Statistical Methods for Research Workers, First Edition.
  4. Jeffreys, The Theory of Probability.
  5. Smolin, 2006, The Trouble with Physics

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 298

Metadata

Authors
Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2017-08-03
Volume
11
Pages
390-390
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951307730
Cited by
298
References
197
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 6
FWCI
6.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020370)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
null hypothesis significance testing, replication crisis, statistical inference, preregistration, power analysis, effect size, negative results, statistics education, research methodology critique, hypothesis testing

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