Here I would agree!
At 10:00 AM -0500 11/12/02, Christopher D. Green wrote:
"Martin J. Bourgeois" wrote:I like that advice. I also like to think of p's as measures of reliability; a p of .001 is more likely to be replicated than a p of .1, given the same effect size.You shouldn't. As Jacob Cohen wrote in the article previously recommended (a recommendation with which I whole-heartedly concur):"After 4 decades of severe criticism, the ritual of null hypothesis significance testing -- mechanical dichotomous decisions around a sacred .05 criterion -- still persists. This article reviews the problems with this practice, including its near-universal misinterpretation of p as the probability that Ho is false, the misinterpretation that its complement is the probability of successful replication, and the mistaken assumption that if one rejects Ho one thereby affirms the theory that led to the test. Exploratory data analysis and the use of graphic methods, a steady improvement in and a movement toward standardization in measurement, an emphasis on estimating effect sizes using confidence intervals, and the informed use of available statistical methods is suggested. For generalization, psychologists must finally rely, as has been done in all the older sciences, on replication." Cohen, J. (1994). The Earth Is Round ( p<.05). American Psychologist, 49 (12), 997-1003.
-- * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
