Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-wf4rb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-08T10:38:53.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The critics rebutted: A Pyrrhic victory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 1998

Stephan Lewandowsky  and
Murray Maybery
Stephan Lewandowsky
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 6907, Australia lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/lewan/
Murray Maybery
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A. 6907, Australia lewan@psy.uwa.edu.au www.psy.uwa.edu.au/user/lewan/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We take up two issues discussed by Chow: the claim by critics of hypothesis testing that the null hypothesis (H0) is always false, and the claim that reporting effect sizes is more appropriate than relying on statistical significance. Concerning the former, we agree with Chow's sentiment despite noting serious shortcomings in his discussion. Concerning the latter, we agree with Chow that effect size need not translate into scientific relevance, and furthermore reiterate that with small samples effect size measures cannot substitute for significance.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 210 - 211
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable