The role of statistical significance (SS) and replicability in research is discussed with reference to Sohn's (1998) exposition. I agree with Sohn's view that SS has no contribution and it is widely misinterpreted. Two interrelated criteria for evaluating research are mentioned: confidence in the hypothesis and replicability of the effect. Science is conceived as progressing continuously via attempted replications. Each successful repetition enhances our confidence in the hypothesis, as can be shown by Bayesian analysis. This, in turn, increases the chances of future replicability.
Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66, 423-437.
2.
Baril, G.L. , & Cannon, J.T. (1995). What is the probability that null hypothesis testing is meaningless?American Psychologist, 50, 1098-1099.
3.
Brown, G.S. (1957). Probability and scientific inference. London: Longmans Green.
4.
Carver, R.P. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378-399.
5.
Carver, R.P. (1993). The case against statistical significance testing, revisited. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 287-292.
6.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
7.
Cohn, V. (1989). News & numbers. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
8.
Edwards, W. , Lindman, H., & Savage, L.J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193-242.
9.
Falk, R. (1981-1982). On coincidences. The Skeptical Inquirer, 6(2), 18-31.
10.
Falk, R. (1986a). Misconceptions of statistical significance. Journal of Structural Learning, 9, 83-96.
11.
Falk, R. (1986b). Of probabilistic knights and knaves. The College Mathematics Journal, 17, 156-164.
12.
Falk, R. , & Greenbaum, C.W. (1995). Significance tests die hard: The amazing persistence of a probabilistic misconception. Theory & Psychology, 5, 75-98.
13.
Fisher, R.A. (1960). The design of experiments (7th ed.). Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
14.
Gigerenzer, G. (1993). The Superego, the Ego, and the Id in statistical reasoning. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 311-339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Guttman, L. (1977). What is not what in statistics. The Statistician, 26, 81-107.
16.
Hagen, R.L. (1997). In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test. American Psychologist, 52, 15-24.
17.
Lindley, D.V. (1993). The analysis of experimental data: The appreciation of tea and wine. Teaching Statistics, 15, 22-25.
18.
Lo Bello, A. (1997). A nod to Bertrand Russell. The College Mathematics Journal, 28, 133.
Murty, V.N. , & Bissinger, B.H. (1982). The law of succession and Bayes' rule. Two-Year College Mathematics Journal, 13, 44-51.
21.
Phillips, L.D. (1973). Bayesian statistics for social scientists. London: Nelson.
22.
Pollard, P. , & Richardson, J. T. E. (1987). On the probability of making Type I errors. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 159-163.
23.
Shlonski, A. (1966). Utz Li Gutz Li [In Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Am-Oved.
24.
Sohn, D. (1998). Statistical significance and replicability. Why the former does not presage the latter. Theory & Psychology, 8, 291-311.
25.
Thompson, B. (1993). The use of statistical significance tests in research: Bootstrap and other alternatives. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 361-377.
