Discussion and comments : strong versus weak significance tests and the role of meta-analytic procedures

 Access to full text

 Full (PDF)

1. CARVER R. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 378-399. 
2. CARVER R.P. (1993). The case against statistical significance testing, revisited. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 287-292. 
3. COHEN J. (1994). The earth is round (p < 0.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. 
4. CUMMING G., & FINCH S. (2001). A primer on the understanding, use, and calculations of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions. Educationai and Psychological Measurement, 61, 532-574. MR1842988
5. DENIS D. J. (2004). The modem hypothesis testing hybrid: R. A. Fisher's fading influence. Journal de la Société Française de Statistique, 145, 4, 5-26. 
6. FISHER R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver & Boyd. Zbl51.0414.08JFM64.0544.03
7. FISHER R. A. (1935). The design of experiments. New York: Hafner. JFM61.0566.03
8. GLASS G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. 
9. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
10. GIGERENZER G., & MURRAY D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
11. GONZALEZ R. (1994). The statistics ritual in psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 321, 325-328. 
12. HALLAHAN M., & ROSENTHAL R. (2000). Interpreting and reporting results. In H. E. A. Tinsley & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 125-149). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. MR1823752
13. HARLOW L. L., MULAIK S. A. & STEIGER J. H. (Eds.). (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
14. HUBERTY C. J. (1993). Historical origins of statistical testing practices: The treatment of Fisher versus Neyman-Pearson views in textbooks. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 317-333. 
15. JONES L. V., & TUKEY J. W. (2000). A sensible formulation of the significance test. Psychological Methods, 5, 411-414. 
16. KWAN E. (2004). The null hypothesis significance testing controversy and the teaching of introductory statistics. Submitted to Teaching of Psychology, under revision. 
17. MEEHL P. (1967). Theory-testing in psychology and physics: a methodological paradox. Philosophy of Science, 34, 103-115. 
18. MEEHL P. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834. 
19. MEEHL P. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and the two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 108-141. 
20. MEEHL P. (1997). The problem is epistemology, not statistics: Replace significance tests by confidence intervals and quantify accuracy of risky numerical predictions. In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 393-425). Mahwah, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 
21. NESTER M. R. (1996). An applied statistician's creed. Applied Statistics, 45, 401-410. MR1423738
22. NICKERSON R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 50, 241-301. 
23. PANICKER S. (2000). Narrow and shallow. American Psychologist, 55, 965-966. 
24. ROSENTHAL R., & GAITO J. (1963). The interpretation of levels of significance by psychological researchers. Journal of Psychology, 55, 33-38. 
25. ROZEBOOM W. W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 416-428. 
26. SCHMIDT F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129. 
27. THOMPSON B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31, 24-31. 
28. WILKINSON L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.