Likelihood ratios: A simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists
Open accessAbstract
Empirical studies in psychology typically employ null hypothesis significance testing to draw statistical inferences. We propose that likelihood ratios are a more straightforward alternative to this approach. Likelihood ratios provide a measure of the fit of two competing models; the statistic represents a direct comparison of the relative likelihood of the data, given the best fit of the two models. Likelihood ratios offer an intuitive, easily interpretable statistic that allows the researcher great flexibility in framing empirical arguments. In support of this position, we report the results of a survey of empirical articles in psychology, in which the common uses of statistics by empirical psychologists is examined. From the results of this survey, we show that likelihood ratios are able to serve all the important statistical needs of researchers in empirical psychology in a format that is more straightforward and easier to interpret than traditional inferential statistics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
If the model with more parameters fits the data significantly better, it indicates that additional parameters provide more information and improve the model's fitness.
“If the model with more parameters fits the data significantly better, it indicates that additional parameters provide more information and improve the model’s fitness [41].”
From Predicting depressive symptom severity through individuals’ nearby Bluetooth device count data collected by mobile phones: preliminary longitudinal study (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
The likelihood ratio test is a statistical test of goodness of fit between two nested models.
“The likelihood ratio test is a statistical test of goodness of fit between two nested models [41].”
From Predicting depressive symptom severity through individuals’ nearby Bluetooth device count data collected by mobile phones: preliminary longitudinal study (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 218
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Edwards, A. W. F. (1972). Likelihood. London: Cambridge University Press.
- Goodman, S. N., & Royall, R. (1988). Evidence and scientific re- search. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1568-1574.
- Authors
- Glover, S., & Dixon, P.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Glover, Scott
- Venue
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 791-806
- ISSN
- 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-5320
- OpenAlex
- W2090292243
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 6.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- likelihood ratios, null hypothesis significance testing, model comparison, statistical inference, statistical interpretation, empirical psychology
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychological Theory, Empirical Research
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