» Articles » PMID: 29476482

Why Checking Model Assumptions Using Null Hypothesis Significance Tests Does Not Suffice: A Plea for Plausibility

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2018 Feb 25
PMID 29476482
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This article explores whether the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) framework provides a sufficient basis for the evaluation of statistical model assumptions. It is argued that while NHST-based tests can provide some degree of confirmation for the model assumption that is evaluated-formulated as the null hypothesis-these tests do not inform us of the degree of support that the data provide for the null hypothesis and to what extent the null hypothesis should be considered to be plausible after having taken the data into account. Addressing the prior plausibility of the model assumption is unavoidable if the goal is to determine how plausible it is that the model assumption holds. Without assessing the prior plausibility of the model assumptions, it remains fully uncertain whether the model of interest gives an adequate description of the data and thus whether it can be considered valid for the application at hand. Although addressing the prior plausibility is difficult, ignoring the prior plausibility is not an option if we want to claim that the inferences of our statistical model can be relied upon.

Citing Articles

Assumption-checking rather than (just) testing: The importance of visualization and effect size in statistical diagnostics.

Shatz I Behav Res Methods. 2023; 56(2):826-845.

PMID: 36869217 PMC: 10830673. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-023-02072-x.


Incidence, Risk Factors, and Attributable Mortality of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections in the Intensive Care Unit After Suspected Catheters Infection: A Retrospective 10-year Cohort Study.

Zhong Y, Zhou L, Liu X, Deng L, Wu R, Xia Z Infect Dis Ther. 2021; 10(2):985-999.

PMID: 33861420 PMC: 8051286. DOI: 10.1007/s40121-021-00429-3.


The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis.

van Doorn J, den Bergh D, Bohm U, Dablander F, Derks K, Draws T Psychon Bull Rev. 2020; 28(3):813-826.

PMID: 33037582 PMC: 8219590. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-020-01798-5.


Bayes Factors for Evaluating Latent Monotonicity in Polytomous Item Response Theory Models.

Tijmstra J, Bolsinova M Psychometrika. 2019; 84(3):846-869.

PMID: 30793230 PMC: 6820449. DOI: 10.1007/s11336-019-09661-w.

References
1.
Cumming G, Finch S . Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol. 2005; 60(2):170-80. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.170. View

2.
Boing-Messing F, van Assen M, Hofman A, Hoijtink H, Mulder J . Bayesian evaluation of constrained hypotheses on variances of multiple independent groups. Psychol Methods. 2017; 22(2):262-287. DOI: 10.1037/met0000116. View

3.
Welch B . The generalisation of student's problems when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika. 2010; 34(1-2):28-35. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28. View

4.
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

5.
Trafimow D . Hypothesis testing and theory evaluation at the boundaries: surprising insights from Bayes's theorem. Psychol Rev. 2003; 110(3):526-35. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.3.526. View