Abstract
Many criticisms have been levelled at null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). It is argued here that although there is reason to doubt that data subjected only to NHST have been subjected to sufficient analysis, the search for clear answers to well-formulated questions derived from substantive hypotheses is well served by NHST. To reliably draw inferences from data, however, NHST may need to be complemented by additional methods of analysis, such as the use of confidence intervals and of estimates of the degree of association between independent and dependent variables. It is argued that these should be seen as complements of, rather than as substitutes for, NHST since they do not directly test the strength of evidence against a null hypothesis.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (66.6 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Goodman S. N. Toward evidence-based medical statistics. 1: The P value fallacy. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Jun 15;130(12):995–1004. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Poole C. Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable? Epidemiology. 2001 May;12(3):291–294. doi: 10.1097/00001648-200105000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sim J., Reid N. Statistical inference by confidence intervals: issues of interpretation and utilization. Phys Ther. 1999 Feb;79(2):186–195. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Swaddle JP, Cuthill IC. The biological relevance of testing for perfect symmetry. Anim Behav. 1997 Aug;54(2):475–476. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1997.0495. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]