Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) provides an important statistical toolbox, but there are a number of ways in which it is often abused and misinterpreted, with bad consequences for the reliability and progress of science. Parts of contemporary NHST debate, especially in the psychological sciences, is reviewed, and a suggestion is made that a new distinction between strongly, weakly, and very weakly anti-NHST positions is likely to bring added clarity to the debate.
DecullierE.LhértierV.ChapuisF. (2005). Fate of biomedical research protocols and publication bias in France: retrospective cohort study. British Medical Journal, 331(7507), 19.
12.
EfronB. (2012). Large-scale inference: Empirical Bayes methods for estimation, testing, and prediction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FanelliD. (2010). “Positive” results increase down the hierarchy of the sciences. PLoS One, 5(4), e10068.
14.
FanelliD. (2012). Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries, Scientometrics, 90, 891-904.
15.
FeynmanR. (1985). Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a curious character. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
16.
FisherR. A. (1956). Statistical methods and scientific inference. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
HäggströmO. (2010). Book review: The cult of statistical significance. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 57, 1129-1130.
19.
HäggströmO. (2013). Why the empirical sciences need statistics so desperately. In LatalaR.. (Eds.), European Congress of Mathematics, Krakow, 2-7 July, 2012 (pp. 347-360). Zurich, Switzerland: EMS Publishing.
IoannidisJ. (2005). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 218-228.
MoreyR.HoekstraR.RouderJ.LeeM.WagenmakersE.-J. (2016). The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 103. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8
28.
NieuwenhuisS.ForstmannB. U.WagenmakersE.-J. (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: A problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 14, 1105-1107.
29.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 6251.
30.
PawitanY. (2001). In all likelihood: Statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
31.
SalsburgD. (2001). The lady tasting tea: How statistics revolutionized science in the twentieth century. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
32.
SavageL. J. (1962). The foundations of statistical inference. London, England: Methuen.
33.
TrafimowD.MarksM. (2015). Editorial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1-2.
34.
ZiliakS.McCloskeyD. (2008). The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice and lives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
ZiliakS.McCloskeyD. (2010). We agree that statistical significance proves essentially nothing: a rejoinder to Thomas Mayer. Econ Journal Watch, 10(1), 97-107.
