IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2608.23315.html

Classification testing: A new framework for drawing qualitative conclusions from quantitative estimates

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew C. Eggers
  • Zikai Li

Abstract

Social scientists rely on hypothesis testing to support their research conclusions, but the standard tests are designed for testing one hypothesis rather than adjudicating between rival possibilities. We develop a new framework, "classification testing", as an alternative. Instead of selecting one hypothesis to test, a researcher conducting a classification test decides what qualitative distinctions ("classes") are most substantively relevant; the test either assigns the estimand to a class with error control similar to that of a conventional hypothesis test, or declares the result inconclusive. We argue that classification testing is superior to current practice not just when the objective is to adjudicate between rival possibilities but also when there is one research hypothesis to be tested, because classification testing exposes that hypothesis to refutation. We illustrate the framework by applying it to a well-known media experiment and offer an R package to aid in implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew C. Eggers & Zikai Li, 2026. "Classification testing: A new framework for drawing qualitative conclusions from quantitative estimates," Papers 2608.23315, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2608.23315
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.23315
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:arx:papers:2608.23315. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arxiv.org/ .

    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.