IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v73y2019is1p374-384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p-Value Ban

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald D. Fricker
  • Katherine Burke
  • Xiaoyan Han
  • William H. Woodall

Abstract

In this article, we assess the 31 articles published in Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) in 2016, which is one full year after the BASP editors banned the use of inferential statistics. We discuss how the authors collected their data, how they reported and summarized their data, and how they used their data to reach conclusions. We found multiple instances of authors overstating conclusions beyond what the data would support if statistical significance had been considered. Readers would be largely unable to recognize this because the necessary information to do so was not readily available.

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald D. Fricker & Katherine Burke & Xiaoyan Han & William H. Woodall, 2019. "Assessing the Statistical Analyses Used in Basic and Applied Social Psychology After Their p-Value Ban," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 374-384, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:374-384
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2018.1537892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2018.1537892
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2018.1537892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Keith R Lohse & Kristin L Sainani & J Andrew Taylor & Michael L Butson & Emma J Knight & Andrew J Vickers, 2020. "Systematic review of the use of “magnitude-based inference” in sports science and medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Heckelei, Thomas & Huettel, Silke & Odening, Martin & Rommel, Jens, 2021. "The replicability crisis and the p-value debate – what are the consequences for the agricultural and food economics community?," Discussion Papers 316369, University of Bonn, Institute for Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Eric W Bridgeford & Shangsi Wang & Zeyi Wang & Ting Xu & Cameron Craddock & Jayanta Dey & Gregory Kiar & William Gray-Roncal & Carlo Colantuoni & Christopher Douville & Stephanie Noble & Carey E Prieb, 2021. "Eliminating accidental deviations to minimize generalization error and maximize replicability: Applications in connectomics and genomics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(9), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Lidon Moliner & Francisco Alegre, 2020. "Effects of peer tutoring on middle school students’ mathematics self-concepts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    5. Guido W. Imbens, 2021. "Statistical Significance, p-Values, and the Reporting of Uncertainty," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(3), pages 157-174, Summer.
    6. Uwe Hassler & Marc‐Oliver Pohle, 2022. "Unlucky Number 13? Manipulating Evidence Subject to Snooping," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 397-410, August.
    7. David J. Hand, 2022. "Trustworthiness of statistical inference," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(1), pages 329-347, January.
    8. White, Mark & Stovner, Roar Bakken, 2023. "Breakdowns in Scientific Practices: How and Why Practices Can Lead to Less than Rational Conclusions (and Proposed Solutions)," OSF Preprints w7e8q, Center for Open Science.
    9. Craig, Russell & Cox, Adam & Tourish, Dennis & Thorpe, Alistair, 2020. "Using retracted journal articles in psychology to understand research misconduct in the social sciences: What is to be done?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:s1:p:374-384. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.