Judgment-based assessment of data from multiply replicated single-subject or small-N studies should replace normative-based (p<0.05) assessment of large-N research in the clinical sciences. Inferential statistics should be abandoned as a method of evaluating clinical research data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arnold, F. (1991). The research fetish. British Medical Journal, 302, 855.
2.
Carver, R.N. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378–399.
3.
Davis, D.R. (1987). Single case research (N of 1 studies). Journal of Applied Nutrition, 39, 1–5.
4.
Oakes, M. (1986). Statistical inference: A commentary for the social and behavioural sciences.Chichester, England: Wiley.
5.
Persons, J.B. (1991). Psychotherapy outcome studies do not accurately represent current models of psychotherapy. A proposed remedy. American Psychologist, 46, 99–106.
6.
Remington, R.D., & Schork, M.A. (1970). Statistics with applications to the biological and health sciences.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
7.
Skinner, B.F. (1984). Methods and theories in the experimental analysis of behavior. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 511–546.
8.
Skipper, J.K., Guenther, A.L., & Nass, G. (1967). The sacredness of 0.05: A note concerning the use of statistical levels of significance in social science. The American Sociologist, 1, 16–18.
9.
Victor, N. (1987). On clinically relevant differences and shifted nullhypotheses [sic]. Methods of Information in Medicine, 26, 109–116.
