Is the Call to Abandon P-values the Red Herring of the Replicability Crisis?

Overview

Journal Front Psychol

Date 2015 Mar 24

PMID 25798124

Citations 9

Authors

Victoria Savalei

Elizabeth Dunn

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Citing Articles

A Modified Sequential Probability Ratio Test.

Pramanik S, Johnson V, Bhattacharya A J Math Psychol. 2022; 101.

PMID: 35496657 PMC: 9053723. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmp.2021.102505.

The Role of Perceived Energy and Self-Beliefs for Physical Activity and Sports Activity of Patients With Multiple Sclerosis and Chronic Stroke.

Schuler J, Wolff W, Pfeifer J, Rihm R, Reichel J, Rothacher G Front Psychol. 2021; 11:570221.

PMID: 33584409 PMC: 7876439. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.570221.

The Practical Alternative to the Value Is the Correctly Used Value.

Lakens D Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021; 16(3):639-648.

PMID: 33560174 PMC: 8114329. DOI: 10.1177/1745691620958012.

Why Most Research Findings About Psi Are False: The Replicability Crisis, the Psi Paradox and the Myth of Sisyphus.

Rabeyron T Front Psychol. 2020; 11:562992.

PMID: 33041926 PMC: 7530246. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.562992.

Performing Contrast Analysis in Factorial Designs: From NHST to Confidence Intervals and Beyond.

Wiens S, Nilsson M Educ Psychol Meas. 2018; 77(4):690-715.

PMID: 29805179 PMC: 5952862. DOI: 10.1177/0013164416668950.

References

Pashler H, Wagenmakers E . Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 7(6):528-30. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612465253. View

Button K, Ioannidis J, Mokrysz C, Nosek B, Flint J, Robinson E . Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14(5):365-76. DOI: 10.1038/nrn3475. View

Yu E, Sprenger A, Thomas R, Dougherty M . When decision heuristics and science collide. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 21(2):268-82. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0495-z. View

Wagenmakers E . A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 14(5):779-804. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194105. View

Morey R, Rouder J, Verhagen J, Wagenmakers E . Why hypothesis tests are essential for psychological science: a comment on Cumming (2014). Psychol Sci. 2014; 25(6):1289-90. DOI: 10.1177/0956797614525969. View

Cumming G . The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2013; 25(1):7-29. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504966. View

Kruschke J . Bayesian Assessment of Null Values Via Parameter Estimation and Model Comparison. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 6(3):299-312. DOI: 10.1177/1745691611406925. View

Poitevineau J, Lecoutre B . Interpretation of significance levels by psychological researchers: the .05 cliff effect may be overstated. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002; 8(4):847-50. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196227. View

Nickerson R . Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000; 5(2):241-301. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989x.5.2.241. View

10.

Ioannidis J . Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124. PMC: 1182327. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. View

11.

Sanborn A, Hills T . The frequentist implications of optional stopping on Bayesian hypothesis tests. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 21(2):283-300. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0518-9. View

12.

Simmons J, Nelson L, Simonsohn U . False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22(11):1359-66. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611417632. View

13.

Coulson M, Healey M, Fidler F, Cumming G . Confidence intervals permit, but do not guarantee, better inference than statistical significance testing. Front Psychol. 2011; 1:26. PMC: 3095378. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00026. View

14.

Bem D . Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 100(3):407-25. DOI: 10.1037/a0021524. View

15.

Rouder J, Speckman P, Sun D, Morey R, Iverson G . Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2009; 16(2):225-37. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225. View

16.

John L, Loewenstein G, Prelec D . Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychol Sci. 2012; 23(5):524-32. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611430953. View

17.

Nosek B, Spies J, Motyl M . Scientific Utopia: II. Restructuring Incentives and Practices to Promote Truth Over Publishability. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 7(6):615-31. PMC: 10540222. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612459058. View

18.

Vankov I, Bowers J, Munafo M . On the persistence of low power in psychological science. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014; 67(5):1037-40. PMC: 4961230. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2014.885986. View

19.

Bem D, Utts J, Johnson W . Must psychologists change the way they analyze their data?. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011; 101(4):716-9. DOI: 10.1037/a0024777. View

20.

Wetzels R, Matzke D, Lee M, Rouder J, Iverson G, Wagenmakers E . Statistical Evidence in Experimental Psychology: An Empirical Comparison Using 855 t Tests. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015; 6(3):291-8. DOI: 10.1177/1745691611406923. View