Cited by 218Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Likelihood ratios: A simple and flexible statistic for empirical psychologists

Open access
Glover, Scott, Dixon, Peter·2004·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03196706

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 218

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Edwards, A. W. F. (1972). Likelihood. London: Cambridge University Press.
  2. 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
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