The DOI matches its Crossref record; 274 of the 274 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Final Collapse of the Neyman-Pearson Decision Theoretic Framework and Rise of the neoFisherian
Abstract
This essay grew out of an examination of one-tailed significance testing. One-tailed tests were little advocated by the founders of modern statistics but are widely used and recommended nowadays in the biological, behavioral and social sciences. The high frequency of their use in ecology and animal behavior and their logical indefensibility have been documented in a companion review paper. In the present one, we trace the roots of this problem and counter some attacks on significance testing in general. Roots include: the early but irrational dichotomization of the P scale and adoption of the ‘significant/non-significant’ terminology; the mistaken notion that a high P value is evidence favoring the null hypothesis over the alternative hypothesis; and confusion over the distinction between statistical and research hypotheses. Resultant widespread misuse and misinterpretation of significance tests have also led to other problems, such as unjustifiable demands that reporting of P values be disallowed or greatly reduced and that reporting of confidence intervals and standardized effect sizes be required in their place. Our analysis of these matters thus leads us to a recommendation that for standard types of significance assessment the paleoFisherian and Neyman-Pearsonian paradigms be replaced by a neoFisherian one. The essence of the latter is that a critical α (probability of type I error) is not specified, the terms ‘significant’ and ‘non-significant’ are abandoned, that high P values lead only to suspended judgments, and that the so-called “three-valued logic” of Cox, Kaiser, Tukey, Tryon and Harris is adopted explicitly. Confidence intervals and bands, power analyses, and severity curves remain useful adjuncts in particular situations. Analyses conducted under this paradigm we term neoFisherian significance assessments (NFSA). Their role is assessment of the existence, sign and magnitude of statistical effects. The common label of null hypothesis significance tests (NHST) is retained for paleoFisherian and Neyman-Pearsonian approaches and their hybrids. The original Neyman-Pearson framework has no utility outside quality control type applications. Some advocates of Bayesian, likelihood and information-theoretic approaches to model selection have argued that P values and NFSAs are of little or no value, but those arguments do not withstand critical review. Champions of Bayesian methods in particular continue to overstate their value and relevance.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,245
Baltosser, W. H., & Zar, J. H. (1996) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/2265725 · Cited by 35,166
Principles and procedures of statistics.
Steel, R. G. D., & Torrie, J. H. (1960) · Cited by 24,135
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Robinson, H. F. (1961) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj1961.00021962005300050002x · Cited by 17,713
Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Walter, S. D., & Altman, D. G. (1992) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532320 · Cited by 11,668
Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists
Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806384 · Cited by 10,674 · cited 2×
“As Quinn and Keough (2002) nicely state, in the great majority of situations, a " rejection of the H 0 is not important because we thought the H 0 might be true.”
BackgroundPractical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668
Jeffreys, H., Moran, P. A. P., & Chatfield, C. (1922) · Nature · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198503682.001.0001 · Cited by 7,878
Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences
McGinn, L. C. (1957) · Journal of the Franklin Institute · doi:10.1016/0016-0032(57)90766-4 · Cited by 7,204
Cited by
Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations
Greenland, S., Senn, S. J., Rothman, K. J., Carlin, J. B., Poole, C., Goodman, S. N., & Altman, D. G. (2016) · European Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3 · Cited by 3,200
Microbial formation of stable soil carbon is more efficient from belowground than aboveground input
Sokol, N. W., & Bradford, M. A. (2019) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0258-6 · Cited by 891
Sokol, N. W., Kuebbing, S. E., Karlsen‐Ayala, E., & Bradford, M. A. (2019) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.15361 · Cited by 631
Amrhein, V., Trafimow, D., & Greenland, S. (2019) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.2018.1543137 · Cited by 425
Statistical Inference as Severe Testing: How to Get Beyond the Statistics Wars
Mayo, D. G. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781107286184 · Cited by 376
Metadata
- Authors
- Hurlbert, S. H., & Lombardi, C. M.
- Venue
- Annales Zoologici Fennici
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 311-349
- ISSN
- 0003-455X (ISSN-L)
- 1797-2450
- OpenAlex
- W2120312320
- Cited by
- 301
- References
- 274
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Final Collapse of the Neyman-Pearson Decision Theoretic Framework and Rise of the neoFisherian. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5735/086.046.0501
- The paper
- Hurlbert, S. H., & Lombardi, C. M. (2009). Final Collapse of the Neyman-Pearson Decision Theoretic Framework and Rise of the neoFisherian. Annales Zoologici Fennici. https://doi.org/10.5735/086.046.0501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.