Hypothesis Testing Reconsidered

Gregory Francis

doi:10.1017/9781108582995

References

Banerjee, P., Chatterjee, P., & Sinha, J. (2012). Is it light or dark? Recalling moral behavior changes perception of brightness. Psychological Science, 23(4), 407–409.

Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 407–425.

Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J. O., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Berk, R. … Johnson, V. E. (2018). Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 6–10.

Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

Chambers, C. D. (2013). Registered reports: A new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex, 49, 609–610.

Champely, S., Ekstrom, C., Dalgaard, P., Gill, J., Weibelzahl, S., Ford, C., & Volcic, R. (2018). Package ‘pwr’: Basic functions for power analysis.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cramer, D. J., van Ravenzwaaij, D., Matzke, D., Steingroever, H., Wetzels, R., Grasman, R. P. … Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016). Hidden multiplicity in exploratory multiway ANVOA: Prevalence and remedies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 640–647.

Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25(1), 38–46.

Francis, G. (2012). Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 151–156.

Francis, G. (2014). The frequency of excess success for articles in Psychological Science. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1180–1187.

Francis, G. (2018). IntroStats Online 2. Sage Publications. https://introstatsonline.com/

Francis, G., & Neath, I. (2018). CogLab 5. Cengage Publishing. https://coglab.cengage.com/

Francis, G., Tanzman, J., & Matthews, W. J. (2014). Excess success for psychology articles in the journal Science, PLOS One, 9(12), e114255. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0114255

Frick, R. W. (1998). A better stopping rule for conventional statistical tests. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 30, 690–697.

Gelman, A., & Loken, E. (2014). The statistical crisis in science. American Scientist 102, 460. doi:10.1511/2014.111.460

Herzog, M. H., Francis, G., & Clarke, A. (in press). How to not lie with statistics: The essentials of statistics and experimental design for everyone with many examples from medicine and bioengineering. New York: Springer.

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 196–217.

Kruschke, J. K. (2010). Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(5), 658–676. doi:10.1002/wcs.72

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McElreath, R. (2016). Statistical rethinking. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349 0.1126/science.aac4716

R core team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org/

Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2018). Power, dominance, and constraint: A note on the appeal of different design traditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 19–26.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple study articles. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 551–566.

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). p-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6) 666–681.

Smith, P. L., & Little, D. R. (2018). Small is beautiful: In defense of the small-N design. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(6), 2083–2101.

Stefanucci, J. K., & Geuss, M. N. (2009). Big people, little world: The body influences size perception. Perception, 38, 1782–1795.

Ueno, T., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2016). Meta-analysis to integrate effect sizes within an article: Possible misuse and Type I error inflation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 5, 643–654.

van Assen, M. A. L. M., van Aert, R. C. M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 293–309.

Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 632–638.

Wolfe, J. M. (2013). Registered reports and replications in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics [Editorial]. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 781–783.

Hypothesis Testing Reconsidered

This Element has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Book description

References

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Book summary page views

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

Accessibility Information